LIBRARY 


PRI^fCETOW,  W.  J. 


DONATION    OF 

s  A  M  u  t:  1.  A  a  N  K  ^\^ , 

"  f    1'  It  1 1.  \  Li  i:  1.  p  n  1  \.   f  X  . 
Letter 


y 


^^^?L^.:.:2,.^S.-.  '«-^/. 


i 


Division 
Case  9 

I  Shelf,       Section.... ,t 

Boo1x\      No, ...'.  ,^ . 


-  -ft). 


♦    * 


y 


/ 


THE 


BIBLE   DEFENDED 


AGAINST     THE 


OBJECTIONS  OF  INFIDELITY: 

BEING   AN   EXAMINATION   OF 
SCIENTIFIC,    HISTORICAL,    C  HEONOLO  GIC  A  L 

AND    OTHER 

SCRIPTURE    DIFFICULTIES. 


BY   REV.    W.    H.    BRISBANE, 

MEMBER  OF  THE  PHILADELPHIA  ANNUAL  CONFERENCE. 


.PHILADELPHIA: 
HIGGINS     &    PERKINPINE, 

NO.   40    NORTH    FOURTH   STREET. 

1855. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1855,  by 

HIGGINS   &   PERKINPINE, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States,  in 
and  for  the  Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania. 


PHILADELPHIA: 
STEREOTYPED  BY  GEORGE  CHARLES, 
PRINTED  BY  T.  K.  &  P.  G.  COLLINS. 


PREFACE. 


-*•»- 


In  the  preparation  of  this  little  volume,  we  have  en- 
deavored to  bear  in  mind  the  wants  of  Sabbath  School 
Teachers  and  Scholars,  who,  in  their  scriptural  studies, 
occasionally  meet  with  "  some  things  hard  to  be  under- 
stood," upon  which  they  desire  a  ready  and  convenient 
means  of  information.  As  well  have  we  endeavored  to 
remember  the  wants  of  the  private  Christian  who,  in  his 
daily  reading  of  the  Bible,  meets  with  difficulties,  or,  in  his 
intercourse  with  his  fellows,  hears  objections  made  thereto, 
for  the  solution  of  which  he  has  neither  the  time  nor 
means  for  research.  Nor  have  we  forgotten  the  honest, 
yet  doubting  inquirer  after  truth,  (and  we  believe  there 
are  many  such,)  to  whom  the  seeming  discrepancies  of  the 
Bible  have  been  made  a  temptation  to  unbelief.  We  trust 
he  may  here  find,  in  some  measure,  an  antidote  to  his 
skepticism. 

There  is  no  attempt  here  to  exhibit  (except  in  an  inci- 
dental manner)  the  evidences  of  the  authenticity  of  Scrip- 
ture ;  our  special  object  has  been  to  refute  infidel  objec- 
tions to  the  Bible,  arising  from  the  nature  of  its  contents. 

(S) 


4'  PKEFACE. 

In  this  task,  we  have  availed  ourselves  of  the  best  sources 
of  information,  on  the  subjects  treated  of,  within  our 
reach;  and  in  the  statement  of  matters  of  fact,  have  de- 
pended upon  the  most  reliable  authorities.  Many  of  the 
objections  have  been  drawn  from  original  sources,  and,  in 
some  instances,  are  given  in  the  language  of  infidel  wri- 
ters. In  the  Introduction  a  number  of  objections  are 
examined  which  could  not  well  be  classed  under  texts,  but 
which,  nevertheless,  claimed  some  notice  in  a  work  of  this 
character. 

The  order  of  the  texts  has  been  followed  through  the 
book,  but  a  copious  topical  index  is  added,  which  will  be 
found  useful  in  referring  to  the  subjects  discussed. 

Our  performance  bears  ample  internal  evidence  that  we 
are  unskilled  in  book-making,  yet,  conscious  as  we  are 
of  its  imperfections,  we  send  it  forth,  trusting  that  it  will 
be,  as  "  seed-corn  cast  upon  the  waters,"  borne  to  some 
genial  soil,  and  productive  of  much  good. 


INTRODUCTION. 


POSITION   OF   INFIDELITY. 

Christianity  is  so  suited  to  our  moral  condition, 
so  perfectly  adapted  to  tlie  wants  and  demands  of 
our  nature,  that  it  is  accepted,  and  its  practical 
advantages  realized,  not  so  often  from  patient  exa- 
minations of  its  voluminous  and  conclusive  evi- 
dences, as  from  the  felt  need  of  that  which  it 
professes  to  give.  It  appeals  to  a  conscious  want. 
And  men  rarely  investigate  the  evidences  of  its 
authenticity  until  they  feel  this  want.  Infidelity  is 
too  often  assumed  to  subdue  this  inward  craving 
for  a  higher  good  than  earth  can  give,  and  to 
smother  the  uprising  conviction  that  Christianity  is 
of  God.  For  this  reason  it  has  proved,  and  must 
ever  prove,  a  failure.  It  is  at  war  with  the  moral 
exigencies  of  our  nature,  and  can  never  hope  for 
success. 

In  their  attack  upon  the  Bible,  infidels  have  im- 
posed upon  themselves  an  equally  hopeless  task. 
It  devolves  upon  them  to  prove  the  ichole  Bible  his- 
toricall}^  untrue,  or,  if  they  admit  the  truth  of  some 
portions  of  it  and  deny  that  of  others,  they  must 
1*  (5) 


6  INTRODUCTIOJT. 

give  lis  clear  and  well-defined  rules  or  principles  to 
discriminate  between  tlie  true  and  tlie  false,  and 
hold  themselves  willing  to  accept  the  legitimate 
consequences  of  such  principles.  To  receive  some 
portions,  and  reject  others  at  will  and  without  rule, 
as  is  too  often  done,  is  manifestly  unjust  and  dis- 
honorable."^ But  the  historical  truth  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments  is  sustained  by  many  infidel  writers, 
from  Celsus  to  Gibbon,  by  accredited  profane  his- 
tory, by  the  rules  of  evidence  which  prevail  in  our 
courts  of  justice,  and  upon  which  we  give  credence 
to  any  historical  record.  Its  historical  truth  being 
establishedj  its  inspiration  and  divine  authority  are 
easily  proved.  We  laugh  to  scorn  then  the  wicked 
hopes  and  malignant  assaults  of  infidelity.  The 
star  of  our  holy  religion  is  still  in  the  ascendant. 
"  Persecuted,  but  not  forsaken — cast  down,  but  not 
destroyed" — "  the  Eose  of  Sharon"  still  blooms,  the 
lovelier  for  the  storms  that  have  shaken  it,  and  shall 
lift  up  its  head  in  perennial  beauty  and  deathless 
fragrance,  when  the  pillars  of  the  universe  totter, 
and  "  the  mountains  are  moved  out  of  their  places." 

*  "This  book,  evidently  composed  by  different  hands,  has  yet  its 
materials  so  interwoven,  and  its  parts  so  reciprocally  dependent, 
that  it  is  impossible  to  separate  them — to  set  some  aside,  and  say  : 
'We  accept  these,  and  reject  those:'  just  as,  in  certain  textures, 
no  sooner  do  Ave  begin  to  take  out  a  particular  thread,  than  we 
find  it  is  inextricably  entangled  with  others,  and  those  again  with 
others  ;  so  that  there  immediately  takes  place  a  prodigious  gather- 
ing at  that  point,  and  if  we  persevere,  a  rent;  but  the  obstinate 
part  at  which  we  tug  will  not  come  away  alone." — Eclipse  of  Faith, 
p.  39(5, 


INTRODUCTION.  *t 

THE  SOURCES  OP  THE  DIEFICULTIES  OF  SCRIPTURE. 
In  order  to  form  a  just  estimate  of  the  character 
of  Scripture  difficulties,  it  will  be  necessary  to  inves- 
tigate the  principal  sources  from  which  they  derive 
their  origin. 

I.  The  Bible,  containing  an  account  of  God's  cha- 
racter, his  dealing  with  men,  &c.,  may  naturally  be 
expected  to  include  many  things  beyond  our  under- 
standing, and  to  discourse  of  many  subjects,  both 
novel  and  mysterious.  Difficulties  of  this  kind, 
arising  from  the  nature  of  its  contents,  prove,  rather 
than  disprove,  its  superhuman  origin,  and  are,  at 
least,  presumptive  evidence  of  its  truth. 

II.  The  greater  part  of  these  writings  was  com- 
posed to  serve  a  present  purpose,  and  unless  we 
enter  into  that  purpose,  and  are  prepared  to  follow 
the  argument  of  the  writer,  we  must,  of  course,  to 
some  extent,  fail  to  comprehend  his  meaning;  there- 
fore, the  lack  of  proper  preparatory  knowledge  on 
our  part  may  prove  a  source  of  difficulties. 

III.  These  books  are  of  extreme  antiquity,  and 
often  refer  to  persons,  places,  opinions,  prejudices,  &c., 
many  of  which  are  forgotten,  but  which  must  be 
recalled  if  w^e  would  fully  understand  the  reference. 

IV.  The  different  sources  from  which  the  sacred 
writers  drew  their  narratives,  the  different  names 
applied  to  the  same  persons  and  places,  the  different 
persons  and  places  bearing  the  same  name,  and  other 
circumstances  of  like  nature,  are  sources  of  difficulty 
to  those  who  do  not  make  themselves  acquainted 
with  them. 


5  INTKODUCTION. 

y.  These  books  liave  not  come  to  us  as  they  were 
written.  Their  original  languages  are  not  generally 
understood,  and  we  read  them  under  all  the  disad- 
vantages of  a  translation.  The  translation  may  be 
imperfect,  or  its  expressions  may  have  become  obso- 
lete, and,  in  some  instances,  the  learned  translators 
may  have  mistaken  the  sense  of  the  original.  The 
difficulties  which  arise  thus,  though  serious,  are  not 
insuperable,  but  may  be  overcome  by  careful  and 
patient  research. 

VI.  The  omission  of  incidents  in  one  narrative  of 
events,  which  are  supplied  in  another  narrative  of 
the  same  occurrences — a  diminution  of  record^  if  we 
may  so  term  it — is  a  source  of  difficulty,  and  espe- 
cially in  the  Gospels.  In  such  cases,  all  the  facts 
given  by  the  several  writers  should  be  taken  together, 
in  order  to  form  a  complete  historical  view  of  the 
events  recorded. 

To  one  or  other  of  the  above-named  sources  may 
most  of  the  difficulties  of  Scripture  be  referred. 
They  are  almost  exclusively  of  an  historical  cha- 
racter, not  affecting,  in  the  remotest  degree,  the 
doctrines  upon  the  knowledge  and  practice  of  which 
the  salvation  of  the  soul  depends.  These  essential 
doctrines  are  exhibited  in  the  plainest  and  most 
intelligible  manner,  and  among  their  several 
branches  there  subsists  the  m^ost  perfect  harmony. 
Therefore,  the  unlettered  Christian  need  have  no  fear 
when  infidels  parade  these  difficulties  before  him 
with  malignant  ostentation. 

It  may  be  asked — Why  has  God  permitted  these 


INTRODUCTION.  9 

difficulties  to  accumulate  in  his  written  word  ?  "We 
can  answer  this  only  by  asking — Why  has  he  not 
embodied  himself  in  the  letter  of  the  record  ?  Why 
has  he  chosen  such  a  medium  at  all  ?  Why  have  not 
the  heavens  everywhere  blazed  with  the  record  of 
his  will  in  characters  of  fire,  clear  to  every  eye,  and 
plain  to  every  mind  ? 

The  various  dif&culties  of  the  Bible  may  be  classi- 
fied, in  reference  to  their  character,  under  the  follow- 
in  sr  heads : — ■ 

I.  Difficulties  arising  from  obscure  or  incorrect 
translation. 

II.  Difficulties  that  may  be  obviated  by  compara- 
tive reference. 

III.  Texts  which  have  been  willfully  perverted  by 
gainsayers. 

IV.  Difficulties  that  may  be  cleared  by  reference 
to  natural  causes,  obsolete  customs,  ceremonies,  kc. 

Y.  Chronological  and  topographical  difficulties. 

YI.  Difficulties  in  the  application  and  understand- 
ing of  names. 

YII.  Difficulties  arising  from  derangement  of 
chapters  and  verses  in  some  of  the  books. 

As  these  are  severally  considered  in  the  order  in 
which  they  occur  in  the  Bible,  we  shall  not  now 
stop  to  notice  them  further.  But  the  above  view 
of  their  character  and  the  resources  of  their  origin 
may  tend,  perhaps,  to  dissipate  the  fears  or  preju- 
dices we  may  have  entertained  respecting  them. 


10  INTRODUCTION. 

THE   NECESSITY   OP    A   REYELATION. 

Infidels  reject  the  Bible  because  it  is  unnecessary; 
nature,  they  say,  teaches  all  of  God  and  of  morals 
man  has  need  to  know.  How  this  can  be  proved, 
or  what  is  its  value,  if  true,  is  hard  to  discover. 
Admitting  that  some  measure  of  religious  truth  can 
be  deduced  from  the  course  of  nature,  this  would 
neither  prove  the  Bible  untrue  nor  unnecessary ;  it 
might  even  then  serve  well  as  a  guide  to  religious 
knowledge.  The  objection,  therefore,  has  no  force. 
If,  however,  we  prove  there  is  a  necessity  for  a  reve- 
lation^ from  God,  it  will  be  a  presumption  that  such 
a  revelation  has  been  made.  '  Denying  then  the  suf- 
ficiency of  the  light  of  nature,  we  shall  proceed  to 
show  that  the  exigencies  of  man's  moral  condition 
call  for  a  revelation  from  God. 

I.  Man  is  a  religious  being.  "We  mean  by  this  that 
he  has  been  created  with  religious  instincts.  In 
every  phase  of  his  existence,  from  the  lowest  bar- 
barism to  the  highest  degree  of  civilization,  he 
worships  something  and  constantly  manifests  an 
instinctive  longing  for  immortality.  This  truth  is 
so  obvious  that  it  needs  no  proof.  If  he  instituted 
these  various  forms  of  worship  without  Divine  direc- 
tion, it  was  certainly  in  obedience  to  the  conscious 

*  Perhaps  it  would  be  better  to  use  the  term  direct  revelation, 
for,  if  GoJ  has  in  any  degree  exhibited  his  character  and  will  in 
the  course  of  nature,  he  has  made  a  revelation — since  to  reveal,  is 
to  exhibit,  or  make  known,  in  any  way.  Hence,  when  infidels  say 
that  God's  laws  may  be  learned  from  natui-e,  they  concede,  not 
only  the  necessity,  but  the  fact  of  a  revelation.  The  question  then 
■will  be— Is  a  direct  revelation  of  God  to  man  necessary  ? 


INTRODUCTION.  11 

necessities  of  his  nature  and  proves  the  existence  of 
his  religious  instincts.^ 

II.  Nothing  within  man  or  ivithout  him,  short  of  a 
7'evelation,  can  satisfy  the  demands  of  this  instinct.  It 
is  here  that  infidels  join  issue  with  Christianity. 
The  necessity  of  some  degree  of  religious  sentiment 
is  conceded,  but  the  necessity  of  the  Bible  is  denied. 
The  old  English  infidel  writers  claimed  that  the 
mind  could  discover  all  necessary  religious  truth 
from  its  own  resources,  without  supernatural  aid. 
But  this  is  not  so.  Take  the  fact  of  God's  existence 
— how  can  man  in  his  original  state,  as  he  sponta- 
neously grew  up,  or  was  created,  discover  this  fact  ? 
The  very  idea  of  God  is  foreign  to  him,  and  how  is 
it  to  be  communicated  to  his  mind  ?  Can  he  deduce 
it  from  the  existence  of  natural  things?  He  has 
first  to  form  an  abstract  idea  of  spiritual  existence; 
but  everything  he  sees  or  feels  is  material,  how  then 
is  this  idea  to  be  formed  ?  But  the  ability  to  reason 
on  such  subjects  supposes  an  educated  mind,  educa- 
tion supposes  civilization,  civilization  supposes  reli- 
gion, and  religion  supposes  some  knowledge  of  God. 
That  condition  in  which  man  originally  was,  accord- 
ing to  the  theory  of  infidelity,  precludes  all  reason- 
ing on  such  abstract  points.  He  was  a  mere  animal 
and  incapable  of  reasoning  outside  the  sphere  of 
his  physical  necessities.     If  he  is  educated  it  must 

*  The  existence  among  all  nations  of  professed  reyelations  of 
God's  will  and  character,  is  evidence  of  the  necessity  of  a  revela- 
tion. If  these  sacred  books  v^ere  the  inventions  of  men,  they  were 
Invented  because  they  were  felt  to  be  needed. 


12  INTRODUCTION. 

be  in  civilized  society,  but  we  know  of  no  civiliza- 
tion without  a  religious  basis.  Tbus  we  reach  the 
conclusion,  that  a  revelation  was  necessary  at  the 
very  beginning  of  man's  history. 

"  Would  a  single  individual,  or  even  a  single 
pair  of  the  human  race,  or  indeed  several  pairs  of 
such  beings  as  we  are,  if  dropped  from  the  hands  of 
their  Maker,  in  the  most  genial  soil  and  climate  of 
this  globe,  without  a  single  idea  or  notion  engraved 
on  their  minds,  ever  think  of  instituting  such  an 
inquiry ;  or,  short  and  simple  as  the  process  of  in- 
vestigation is,  would  they  be  able  to  conduct  it, 
should  it  somehow  occur  to  them  ?  No  man  who 
has  paid  due  attention  to  the  means  by  which  all 
our  ideas  of  external  objects  are  introduced  into 
our  minds  through  the  medium  of  the  senses ;  or  to 
the  still  more  refined  process  by  which,  reflecting  on 
what  passes  within  our  minds,  when  we  combine  or 
analyze  these  ideas,  we  acquire  the  rudiments  of  all 
our  knowledge  of  intellectual  objects,  will  pretend 
that  they  would."* 

"Between  matter  and  spirit,  things  visible  and 
invisible,  time  and  eternity,  beings  finite  and  beings 
infinite,  objects  of  sense  and  objects  of  faith,  the  con- 
nection is  not  perceptible  to  human  observation. 
Though  we  push  our  researches,  therefore,  to  the 
extreme  point,  whither  the  light  of  nature  can  carry 
us,  they  will  in  the  end  be  abruptly  terminated,  and 
we  must  stop  short  at  an  immeasurable  distance 
between  the  creature  and  the  Creator."f 

*Glieg's  Stackhouse  Intro.  f  Van  Mildert's  Discourses. 


IXTRODUCTION.  13 

Again — "Suppose  a  person,  whose  powers  of 
argumentation  are  improved  to  tlie  utmost  pitcli  of 
human  capacity,  but  who  has  received  no  idea  of 
God  by  any  revelation,  whether  from  tradition, 
Scripture,  or  inspiration,  how  is  he  to  convince 
himself  that  God  is,  and  from  whence  is  he  to  learn 
what  God  is  ?  That  of  which  he  yet  knows  nothing, 
cannot  be  a  subject  of  his  thought,  his  reasonings, 
or  his  conversation.  He  can  neither  afl&rm  nor  deny 
till  he  know  what  is  to  be  afi&rmed  or  denied. 
From  whence  then  is  our  philosopher  to  divine,  in 
the  first  instance,  his  idea  of  the  infinite  Being, 
concerning  the  reality  of  whose  existence  he  is,  in 
the  second  place,  to  decide  ?" '^ 

If  it  is  said,  this  idea  of  God  is  instinctive  in 
man,  we  ask,  how  came  it  to  be  so  ?  It  could  not 
create  itself  in  the  mind,  and  if  God  created  it 
there,  then  he  has  revealed  himself  to  man,  and 
revelation  is  not  only  a  necessity,  but  a  fact. 

It  is  sometimes  argued  that  conscience  is  contin- 
ually suggesting  to  man  a  divine  and  overruling 
presence — a  superhuman  something  to  which  he  is 
amenable,  and  which  is  God. 

But  conscience  supposes  the  communication  of 
God's  will,  as  a  standard  of  right  and  wrong,  as 
much  as  it  supposes  the  existence  of  God.  And  we 
very  much  doubt  whether  the  existence  of  a  con- 
science will  serve  the  purpose  of  the  deist  who, 
rejecting  the  authority  of  a  direct  revelation,  depends 
solely  upon  his  own  reason. 

*  Hare's  Prescr.  against  Socin. 

2 


14  INTRODUCTION. 

To  this  argument,  from  the  evidence  of  conscience, 
we  may  well  apply  the  reasoning  of  Faber  on  thp 
evidence  of  design.  "  The  argument,  from  the  evideiv. 
design  impressed  upon  the  universe^  proves,  indeed, 
that  the  universe  must  have  been  first  designed  and 
then  created;  but  it  is  incapable  of  proving,  that 
the  universe  had  no  more  than  a  single  designer. 
Whether  we  suppose  one  designer  or  many  design- 
ers, and  thence  one  creator  or  many  creators,  the 
phenomenon  of  evident  design  in  the  creation  will  be 
equally  accounted  for :  and,  beyond  this,  the  argu- 
ment in  question,  as  managed  upon  deistical  prin- 
ciples, neither  does  nor  can  reach.  The  deist,  I 
allow,  can  prove  very  satisfactorily,  and  without  the 
aid  of  revelation,  that  the  universe,  marked  as  it  is 
in  all  its  parts  by  evident  design,  must  have  been 
itself  designed,  and  therefore  created ;  but  he  never 
did,  and  he  never  can  prove,  without  the  aid  of 
revelation,  that  the  universe  was  designed  by  a 
single  designer.""  So,  conscience  does  not  say 
whether  it  is  one  God  or  many  to  whom  man  is 
amenable.  Further,  the  infidel,  by  admitting  the 
existence  of  conscience  and  its  intimations  of 
accountability,  concedes  the  adaptation  of  man's 
moral  constitution  to  a  direct  revelation,  and  by 
den3dng  such  a  revelation  involves  himself  in  an 
inextricable  dilemma. 

But  waiving  all  these  difficulties,  and  supposing 
the  fact  of  God's  existence  is  known,  how  are  we  to 

*  Difru-uUloR  of  Tnfulelity.    Soc.  TI. 


INTRODUCTION.  15 

learn  of  his  nature,  our  obligations  to  hira,  and  our 
future  destiny? 

Where  does  nature  unfold  those  perfect  and 
sublime  lessons  on  the  attributes  of  God,  of  which 
infidels  boast  ?  Where  does  it  tell  us  that  he  is  a 
God  of  infinite  power,  on  whose  almighty  arm  we 
may  fling  the  burden  of  our  cares,  and  stay  our 
hopes  of  immortality  ?  Nowhere.  Do  you  say  his 
power  is  everywhere  manifest  ?  True  ;  but  it  is  an 
infinite  power.  How  can  we  prove,  from  nature, 
that  he  has  not  done  the  utmost  he  can  do  ?  That 
he  made  everything  that  is  made  does  not  prove 
that  his  power  is  without  limit,  or  that  the  limit 
has  not  been  already  reached;  that  we  can  conceive 
.of  no  higher  exercise  of  power  than  is  evidenced  in 
the  creation  of  the  universe  is  nothing  to  the  point, 
for  there  may  be  exercises  of  power  beyond  our 
conception,  and  even  these  exercises  may  fall  below 
infinitude. 

Where  does  nature  teach  that  God's  wisdom  is 
infinite  ?  The  nice  adaptation  of  means  to  ends,  the 
wonderful  harmony  of  nature's  operations,  are  not 
adequate  proof  that  he  who  made  and  moves  the 
universe  is  infinitely  wise.  Where  is  the  evidence 
that  he  "  readeth  the  hearts  and  discerneth  the 
thoughts  of  men,"  that  he  sees  "  the  end  from  the 
beginning,"  and  provides  for  the  evil  afar  ofi"? 
Where  is  the  proof? 

Where  does  nature  teach  us  that  God  is  love  ? 
Where  does  it  so  unfold  the  goodness  and  mercy  of 
God  as  to  melt  the  heart  and  win  back  to  rectitude 


16  INTRODUCTION. 

the  wandering  prodigal?  "N'ature  teaches,"  says  the 
infidel,  "that  God  is  benevolent."  Benevolent? 
Benevolent  in  providing  for  the  necessities  of  his 
creatures ;  necessities  which,  upon  the  theory  of 
infidelity,  he  himself  created  ?  So  this  is  the  benevo- 
lence which  is  to  exact  from  us  the  highest  and 
holiest  forms  of  religious  reverence  ?  which  rates 
■us  with  the  beasts  and  birds,  and  minutest  aniraal- 
culee  of  microscopical  notice? — for  what  is  man 
above  these,  when  measured  by  that  care  which  is 
bestowed  upon  each  and  all  alike  ?  If  the  infidel's 
notions  of  divine  benevolence  depended  upon  what 
he  learned  of  it  from  the  course  of  nature,  they 
would  be  meagre  indeed. 

But  how  is  he  to  reconcile  with  this  benevolence, 
the  withering  drought,  the  crushing  tempest,  the 
blasting  pestilence?  He  goes  into  a  scene  of  life 
and  gayety,  and  in  the  very  midst  of  festivity,  some 
sudden,  fatal  casualty  crushes  hearts  just  now  beat- 
ing and  bounding  with  bliss.  He  looks  upon  some 
calm,  peaceful  landscape,  smiling  with  beauty,  and 
suddenly  clouds  and  darkness  sweep  over  it,  and  the 
mad,  howling  tempest  desolates  the  scene.  He  goes 
into  his  family,  circles  himself  with  loved  ones,  and 
in  the  midst  of  domestic  bliss,  death  enters — stills 
the  prattle  of  his  darling — rends  the  finest  feelings 
of  his  heart — crushes  the  soul  of  her  whose  joy  is 
the  sunlight  of  his  home — and  he  starts  up  tempted 
to  think  that  some  infernal  devil  disputes  with  God 
the  government  of  this  world.  And  how  will 
nature  solve  these  difficidties  ?     Without  the  Bible 


INTRODUCTION.  17 

they  are  inexplicable  mysteries,  and  life  itself  is  one 
dark  problem  to  wbicb  there  can  be  no  solution. 
So  imperfect  are  the  teachings  of  nature  on  these 
first  principles  of  reli^^[i|ll^ 

Eom.  i.,  20,  has  been  supposed  to  teach  that  the 
nature  of  God  may  be  learned  from  his  works.  But 
God  originally  revealed  himself  to  man,  conse- 
quently, it  was  not  difficult  to  deduce  something  of 
his  nature  from  "  the  things  that  are  made,"  and 
develop  afresh  the  knowledge  of  God  from  the 
contemplation  of  his  works  and  providence.  And 
the  Apostle  restricts  this  knowledge  of  God  to  his 
higher  nature  in  general — "  the  dominion  of  a 
mighty  power  over  the  elements  of  the  world" — 
but  not  including  his  personal  existence  as  an  abso- 
lute spirit,  his  justice,  holiness,  and  love.^ 

And  where  is  man  to  learn  a  perfect  rule  of  life  ? 
Must  he  follow  the  dictates  of  his  own  heart  ?  Then 
lust  will  be  his  monitor  and  passion  his  guide.  Shall 
he  appeal  to  the  nations  of  antiquity  ?  Among  these 
their  captives,  slaves  and  children  were  murdered 
with  impunity,  and  thousands 

*'  Butchered  to  make  a  Roman  holiday." 

Lying,  theft,  adultery  and  crimes  of  foulest  dye, 
were  frequently,  constantly  practised ;  their  altars 
were  often  stained  with  human  blood,  and  their 
temples  polluted  with  shocking  obscenities. 

Is  he,  turning  from  these,  to  follow  the  precepts 
of  philosophers  and  legislators  of  antiquity  ?     What 

*  See  Olshausen  on  the  passage. 

2* 


18  INTRODUCTION. 

authority  have  these  to  teach  him  ?  By  what  right 
do  they  demand  his  obedience?  Clearly  they  are 
without  authority.  But  whom  of  them  is  he  to  listen 
to  ?  Zeno  and  Diogenes  sanctioned  many  impuri- 
ties ;  Lycurgus  and  Solon  legalized  infanticide ; 
Draco  punished  all  crimes  with  blood ;  Plato  advo- 
cated a  community  of  wives;  Aristotle  was  bitter 
and  revengeful ;  the  Catos  cruel  and  immoral.  And 
modern  infidel  philosophers  are  not  much  above 
these  in  morality.  One  of  these  tells  us  that  "phy- 
sical good  is  the  rule  of  virtue,  and  physical  evil 
the  rule  of  vice."  But  such  rules  are  both  deficient 
and  impracticable.  There  are  virtues  which  do  not 
result  m  phj^sical  good ;  there  are  vices  not  attended 
with  physical  evil;  there  is  physical  good  which 
does  not  arise  from  virtue.  The  lightning  rod  on 
my  house  results  in  physical  good,  but  it  was  not 
necessarily  virtue  that  put  it  there ;  and  so  of  a 
thousand  other  occurrences  in  life.  An  infidel  work 
now  before  me  says,  "that  course  which  on  the 
Avhole  tends  to  produce  the  greatest  amount  of  phy- 
sical good  is  a  virtuous  course."  But  how  is  a  man 
to  determine  what  course  will  produce  the  greatest 
amount  of  physical  good  ?  He  can  not  depend  upon 
the  testimony  of  others  ;  for,  on  the  supposition  that 
a  revelation  exists  many  would  decide  on  that  basis, 
— on  the  supposition  of  no  revelation,  opinions 
would  still  be  conflicting,  therefore  every  man  must 
decide  for  himself;  and  when  by  his  long  experience 
he  might  make  some  sort  of  determination,  it  would 


INTEODUCTION.  19 

be  useless ;  habits  would  be  fixed  and  death  at  hand.* 
Therefore,  without  the  Bible  there  is  no  sufficient 
rule  of  life. 

And  where  is  man  to  learn  his  future  destiny  ? 
If  he  appeals  to  ancient  philosophers,  one  tells  him 
his  soul  is  material,  another  that  it  will  be  trans- 
mitted through  beasts  and  birds,  another  that  it  will 
be  absorbed  into  the  Deity.  All  is  darkness  and 
confusion.  He  asks — is  my  soul  immortal — if  so, 
what  shall  be  its  doom  or  destiny  ?  Cicero  doubts 
— Caesar  denies — Seneca  wavers. 

Here  nature  fails — the  material  can  not  reveal  the 
mysteries  of  the  spiritual.  This  world  speaks  for 
itself  alone,  it  can  not  speak  for  another.  Here  I 
stand  upon  the  crumbling  brink  of  time ;  every 
moment  some  portion  of  my  resting  place  drops  into 
the  deep  abyss,  and  threatens  next  to  plunge  me 
into  its  unfathomable  depths.  Clouds  and  darkness 
thicken  around  me.  From  what  part  of  nature 
shall  come  the  beam  to  illume  the  future  ?  Where  has 
she  hidden  the  Promethean  fire  which  may  light  me 
through  the  valley  of  death  ?  Everything  within  and 
without  impels  me  forward — good  God  !  into  what  ? 

*  "  All  reasoning  on  morals  presupposes  a  distinction  between 
inclinations  and  duties,  affections  and  rules.  The  former  prompt ; 
the  latter  prescribe.  The  former  supply  motives  to  action ;  the 
latter  regulate  and  control  it.  Hence  it  is  evident,  if  virtue  liave 
any  just  claim  to  authority,  it  must  be  under  the  latter  of  these 
notions;  that  is,  under  the  character  of  a  law." — Hall  on  Modern 
Infidelity. 

But  deductions  and  inferences  from  the  course  of  nature  cannot 
have  the  force  of  moral  laws. 


20  INTRODUCTION.' 

Here  Infidelity  fails  me,  Pliilosopliy  fails  me,  Reason 
fails  me,  and,  but  for  the  Bible,  there  would  remain 
nothing  but  to  leap,  with  the  hopeless  desperation 
of  a  suicide,  into  the  profound  gloom  and  perish  for- 
ever. Thank  God,  then,  for  the  Bible.  In  this  all 
the  dark  problems  of  life  are  solved,  and  man  is 
made  wise  unto  salvation.  Here  I  find  offered  to 
my  hopes  a  destiny  beyond  the  reach  and  ravage  of 
time,  and  outstripping  the  sublimest  conceptions  of 
man ;  here  is  the  beam  that  will  light  up  the  regions 
of  death,  and  fling  the  bloom  and  beauty  of  immor- 
tality around  my  ascending  path  to  the  thrones  and 
crowns  of  heaven. 

MYSTERIES  OE   THE  BIBLE. 

Infidels  often  object  to  the  Bible  that  it  contains 
mysteries.  Yet  the  nature  that  they  would  deify  is  full 
of  mysteries.  There  are  more  to  be  found  in  any 
one  department  of  science  than  is  contained  in  the 
whole  Bible.  But  the  term  mystery  is  only  another 
name  for  our  ignorance ;  that  which  we  do  not  com- 
prehend we  call  mysterious.  To  the  pupil,  there 
are  mysteries  in  mathematics  which  are  very  clear 
to  the  teacher.  So  by  properly  studying  the  Bible, 
and  becoming  imbued  with  its  spirit,  much  that  is 
now  incomprehensible  will  be  made  plain  and  satis- 
factory. 

But  there  are  matters  connected  with  God,  and 
the  "things  invisible  and  eternal,"  which  must  ever 
remain  mysterious  to  the  human  mind,  at  least  in 
its  present  condition.     Apart  from   this,  however, 


IN-TRODUCTIOIT.  21 

the  Bible  makes  plain,  even  to  the  understanding  of 
a  wayfaring  man,  enough  "for  doctrine,  for  correc- 
tion, for  instruction  in  righteousness :  that  the  man 
of  God  may  be  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto 
all  good  works." 

THE  IMMORALITY   OF   THE    BIBLE. 

It  is  sometimes  asserted  that  portions  of  the  Bible 
are  very  indelicate,  and  even  immoral.  An  infidel 
lecturer  lately  said,  it  is  the  most  immoral  book  he 
ever  read.  This  charge  comes"  with  very  bad  grace 
from  those  whose  philosophy  undermines  the  whole 
superstructure  of  virtue  and  morality,  and  gives 
lust  and  passion  the  empire  of  the  world.  If  the 
morality  of  Infidelity  is  to  be  judged  of  by  the  cha- 
racter of  its  celebrated  leaders,  Bolingbroke,  Yoltaire, 
Eousseau,  Paine,  and  others,  or  from  the  manifest  ten- 
dencies of  the  socialistic  theories  of  Owen  and  the 
French  Communists,  then  it  behooves  infidels  to  hang 
their  heads  with  shame  and  confusion. 

The  Bible  simply  records  facts  relating  to  human 
conduct ;  if  these  are  indelicate,  the  charge  is  to  be 
laid  against  human  nature,  and  not  against  the 
record.  Moreover,  there  are  terms  and  expressions 
in  our  English  version  which  have  to  modern  ears  a 
tone  of  indelicacy ;  but  this  was  not  formerly  the 
case,  and  it  is  to  be  attributed  to  the  changes  which 
are  constantly  occurring  in  our  habits  and  language.* 

Although  the  Bible  exhibits  the  wickedness  of 

*  A  Turk  would  think  it  highly  indelicate,  and  even  immoral,  for 
a  female  to  appear  in  the  streets  without  a  veil. 


22  INTRODUCTION". 

man,  it  never  justifies,  but  always  condemns  it,  at 
tlie  same  time,  it  presents  us  sucli  precepts  and  prin- 
ciples as  constitute  the  purest  and  only  authoritative 
system  of  morality  known  to  man. 

TESTIMONY. 

An  infidel  of  this  country  recently  said : — "  The 
Bible  depends  for  acceptance  upon  testimony,  but 
testimony  is  not  to  be  received.  Christians  them- 
selves do  not  believe  in  testimony,  only  as  suits 
their  caprice.  Chinese,  Hindoos,  Persians,  and  other 
nations,  have  their  sacred  books  sustained  by  testi- 
mony, but  Christians  reject  them.  Mormons  claim 
to  have  testimony  for  their  books,  Eomanists  have 
testimony  for  their  traditions,  Protestant  sects  sum- 
mon testimony  to  the  support  of  their  peculiarities, 
but  the  testimony  of  each  is  received  or  rejected  by 
the  others,  only  as  suits  their  whims  or  peculiar 
views." 

This  is  very  dishonest.  But  admitting  the  reason- 
ing, it  does  not  follow  that  the  Bible  is  untrue, 
excluding,  by  the  conditions  of  the  argument,  all 
infidel  testimony  against  it,  the  whole  matter  is 
reduced  to  this — Every  man  must  determine  the 
question  of  the  Bible's  authenticity  for  himself,  and 
not  depend  upon  the  testimony  of  others.  Let 
infidels  take  this  position  (the  only  one  consistent 
with  the  above  argument),  and  press  home  upon 
every  man  the  necessity  of  settling  the  question  for 
himself,  and  there  will  be  no  doubt  of  their  sincerity 


INTRODUCTION.  23 

or  consistency,  and  but  little  complaint  of  their 
zeal. 

But  tlie  argument  is  fallacious.  It  does  not  dis- 
criminate between  true  and  false  testimony.  The 
character  of  the  testimony  must  determine  whether 
it  is  to  be  received  or  rejected.  The  testimony 
adduced  in  support  of  the  Bible  must  be  weighed 
upon  its  own  merits,  and  if  found  wanting  we  shall 
not  complain  of  its  rejection.  But  such  sweeping, 
wholesale,  indiscriminate  repudiation  as  infidels  too 
often  deal  against  the  Sacred  Books,  betokens  a 
spirit  contemptibly  illiberal. 

The  remarks  of  Butler,  on  the  historical  evidence 
of  miracles,  acknowledged  to  be  fabulous,  suit  our 
purpose  at  this  point.  "But  suppose,"  he  says, 
"  there  were  even  tlte  like  historical  evidence  for 
these,  to  what  there  is  for  those  alleged  in  proof  of 
Christianity,  which  yet  is  in  no  wise  allowed,  but 
suppose  this ;  the  consequence  would  not  be,  that 
the  evidence  of  the  latter  is  not  to  be  admitted. 
Nor  is  there  a  man  in  the  world,  who,  in  common 
cases,  would  conclude  thus.  For  what  would  such 
a  conclusion  really  amount  to  but  this,  that  evidence, 
confuted  by  contrary  evidence,  or  in  any  way  over- 
balanced, destroys  the  credibility  of  other  evidence, 
neither  confuted,  nor  overbalanced  ?  To  argue,  that 
because  there  is,  if  there  were,  like  evidence  from 
testimony,  for  miracles  acknowledged  false,  as  for 
those  in  attestation  of  Christianity,  therefore  the 
evidence  in  the  latter  case  is  not  to  be  credited  ; 
this  is  tlie  same  as  to   argue,  that  if  two  m:'n   of 


24  INTRODUCTION. 

equally  good  reputation  had  given  evidence  in 
different  cases  no  way  connected,  and  one  of  them 
had  been  convicted  of  perjury,  this  confuted  the 
testimony  of  the  other."  "^ 

We  repeat  it,  therefore,  that  the  truth  of  Chris- 
tianity must  be  decided  upon  its  own  evidences,  and 
not  in  view  of  the  truth  or  falsity  of  other  systems 
of  religion. 

ANONYMOUS    BOOKS. 

"Anonymous,  and  therefore  without  authority," 
reiterates  Paine,  with  unblushing  effrontery.  Admit- 
ting that  some  of  the  books  of  the  Bible  are  anony- 
mous, they  certainly  had  authors,  and  if  true  when 
the  authors  were  known,  they  are  equally  true  now. 
If  the  writer  of  a  true  history  becomes  in  the  lapse 
of  time  unknown,  the  history  does  not  thereby 
become  false.  If  its  authenticity  be  proved,  it 
matters  nothing  how  much  doubt  rests  upon  its 
origin.  If  Paine  did  not  know  this  he  was  sadly 
ignorant;  if  he  knew  and  would  not  acknowledge  it, 
he  was  shamefully  dishonest. 

There  are  issuing  from  the  press  constantly, 
Almanacs,  Kegisters,  Eeviews,  Magazines,  &;c.,  which 
are  anonymous,  but  many  of  them  strictly  authentic, 
and  to  be  confidently  depended  upon  for  the  matters 
of  fact  they  contain. 

The  origin  of  the  Canonical  books,  as  far  as 
ascertained,  is  as  follows.  The  first  five — the  Pen- 
tateuch— were   written   by   Moses.      The  book   of 

*  Butler's  Analogy,  Part  II.     Chap.  YII. 


INTRODUCTION.  25 

Joshua,  by  Joshua.  Judges  and  Euth  are  attributed 
to  Samuel  by  most  Biblical  scholars.  The  two 
books  of  Samuel,  the  two  Kings,  and  the  two  Chro- 
nicles, bear  evidence  of  being  compiled,  in  part, 
from  the  national  records;  the  first  twenty-four 
chapters  of  1st  Samuel,  are  said,  by  Talmudical 
writers,  to  be  the  work  of  that  prophet,  the  remain- 
der were  compiled  by  Gad  and  Nathan.  The  books 
of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  are  attributed  to  the  persons 
whose  names  they  bear.  The  writer  of  Esther  is 
now  unknown.  The  book  of  Job  was  written  either 
by  himself,  or  by  Moses,  most  probably  by  the  latter 
from  original  sources.  The  Psalms  are  mainly  from 
David,  the  remainder  are  from  Ezra,  Moses,  and 
others.  Proverbs,  up  to  the  thirtieth  chapter,  Eccle- 
siastes,  and  Canticles  are  by  Solomon.  The  several 
books  of  the  Prophets,  by  those  whose  names  are 
attached  to  them.  The  Gospels  were  written  severally 
by  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John ;  Luke  wrote  also 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  The  Epistles  to  Eomans, 
Corinthians,  Galatians,  Ephesians,  Philippians,  Co- 
lossians,  Thessalonians,  Timothy,  Titus  and  Phile- 
mon, are  beyond  doubt  Pauline ;  the  authorship  of 
the  Epistle  to  Hebrews  is  not  definitely  settled,  but 
it  is  generally  attributed  to  Paul.  James  the  Less, 
the  son  of  Alpheus,  is  believed  to  be  the  author  of 
the  Epistle  of  James.  Peter  is  the  author  of  the 
two  bearing  his  name ;  and  the  brother  of  James  the 
Less,  sometimes  called  Judas  and  Thaddeus,  wrote 
the  Epistle  of  Jude.  Revelations  were  written  by 
3 


26  INTRODUCTION". 

John.  Eespecting  the  Canon,  the  historical  evidence 
is  very  clear  and  conclusive. 

From  Josephus,  Philo,  Melito  and  the  Talmud,  we 
learn  that  the  Jewish  Canon  agrees  precisely  with 
our  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  exclusive  of  the 
Apocrypha.  The  Canon  of  the  New  Testament 
was  fixed,  as  now  received,  at  an  early  age  of  the 
Christian  church.  In  the  third  century  we  have 
two  complete  catalogues  of  our  sacred  books,  besides 
a  distinct  recognition  of  them  in  quotations  and 
references  by  Cyprian,  Yictorinus,  Origen,  and  nearly 
forty  others. 

In  the  second  century  we  have  references  and 
quotations  in  the  writings  of  Tertullian,  Clemens 
Alexandrinus,  Irenseus,  Justin  Martyr,  and  besides, 
the  old  Syriac  and  Italic  versions,  which  fix  the 
genuineness  of  the  New  Testament  Scriptures  up  to 
that  period.  There  have  come  down  to  us  from  the 
first  century,  Epistles  of  Polycarp,  Ignatius  and 
Clemens  Eomanus,  which  contain  formal  quotations 
from,  or  distinct  allusions  to  most  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament books ;  sufficient  proof  that  they  were  held 
to  be  genuine  by  the  contemporaries  and  immediate 
successors  of  the  Apostles.^ 

Independent  of  this  and  other  external  proof, 
there  is  such  internal  evidence  of  the  genuineness 
of  the  several  canonical  books  as  to  place  their 
claims,  in  this  respect,  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt. 

*  Carpenter,  Home,  LarJner. 


INTRODUCTION.  27 

VARIOUS    READINGS. 

Among  tlie  old  copies  of  the  sacred  books,  pas- 
sages are  sometimes  found  to  read  differently  in 
different  MSS.  When  it  is  difficult  to  determine 
which  is  the  true  reading,  they  are  called  various 
readings.  "Infidels  have  endeavored  to  shake  the 
faith  of  less  informed  Christians,  b}^  raising  objec- 
tions against  the  number  of  various  readings.  The 
unlettered  Christian,  however,  need  not  be  under 
any  apprehension  that  they  will  diminish  the  cer- 
tainty of  his  faith.  Of  all  the  many  thousand  vari- 
ous readings  that  have  been  discovered,  none  have 
been  found  that  affect  our  faith,  or  destroy  a  single 
moral  precept  of  the  Gospel.  They  are  mostly  of  a 
minute  and  trifling  nature :  and  by  far  the  greatest 
number  make  no  alteration  whatever  in  the  sensed  * 

OMISSIONS. 
In  describing  certain  events,  it  has  happened  that 
some  of  the  writers  have  omitted  facts  which  are 
noticed  by  others ;  as  in  the  Gospels,  Matthew  has 
related  occurrences  which  are  passed  over  in  silence 
by  the  other  Evangelists,  and  they,  on  the  other 
hand,  have  recorded  facts  which  he  omits.  These 
omissions  have  been  treated  by  infidel  writers  as 
contradictions.  But  nothing  could  be  more  absurd, 
not  to  say  dishonest,  than  such  a  course.  That  such 
differences  should  exist  is  perfectly  natural.  The 
disciples  were  not  always  together,  and  if  they  had 
been  would  not  have  seen  with  one  pair  of  eyes ;  nor 

*  Ilorue. 


26  INTRODUCTION. 

would  tlie  different  circumstances  in  the  same  event 
have  been  equally  impressed  upon  all  their  minds. 
There  must,  then,  of  necessity,  be  some  such  differ- 
ences in  their  several  narratives  as  we  now  find  in 
them.  The  same  remarks  are  applicable  in  some 
degree  to  others  of  the  sacred  writers.  But  let  it  be 
borne  in  mind,  that  omissions  are  not  contradictions, 
nor  is  silence  concerning  a  fact  a  denial  of  it.  If 
there  were  a  perfect  agreement  among  the  inspired 
penmen,  word  for  word  and  fact  for  fact,  infidels 
would  be  quick  to  seize  upon  that  as  an  indisputable 
evidence  of  collusion,  and  would  reject  the  whole 
as  a  made  up  story. 

"  If  there  had  been  an  absolute  harmony,  even  to 
the  minutest  point,  I  am  persuaded  that,  on  the 
principles  of  evidence  in  all  such  cases,  many  would 
have  charged  collusion  on  the  writers,  and  have  felt 
that  it  was  a  corroboration  of  the  theory  of  the 
fictitious  origin  of  these  compositions.  But  as  the 
case  stands,  the  discrepancies,  if  the  compositions  be 
fictitious  indeed,  are  only  a  proof  that  these  men 
attained  a  still  more  wonderful  skill  in  aping  veri- 
similitude than  if  there  had  been  no  discrepancies 
at  all.  They  have  left  in  the  historic  portions  of 
their  narrative  an  air  of  general  harmony,  with  an 
exquisite  congruity  in  points  which  lie  deep  below 
the  surface, — a  congruity  which  they  must  be  sup- 
posed to  have  known  would  astonish  the  world  when 
once  discovered;  and  have  at  the  same  time  left 
certain  discrepancies  on.  the  surface  (which  criticism 
would  be  sure  to  point  out),  as  if  for  the  very  pur- 


IXTRODUCTION.  29 

pose  of  affording  guarantees  and  vouchers  against 
the  suspicion  of  collusion !  The  discords  increase 
the  harmony.  Once  more,  I  asked,  could  I  believe 
Jeics^  Jews  in  the  reign  of  Tiberius  or  Nero,  equal 
to  all  these  wonders?"'^ 


ANTHROPOMORPHISMS    OF    SCRIPTURE. 

It  has  been  objected  that  the  Bible  often  speaks 
of  G-od  as  having  "hands,"  "feet,"  "eyes,"  as  mov- 
ing from  place  to  place,  as  if  invested  with  a  human 
form,  and  possessing  human  passions,  as  "jealousy," 
"  vengeance,"  &;c.  And  it  has  been  assumed,  from 
this,  that  the  writers  of  the  earlier  books  believed 
God  to  be  a  being  of  body  and  parts. 

Nothing  could  be  more  unjust  than  this.  We 
could  quote,  from  infidel  writers,  in  prose  and  verse, 
passages  liable  to  the  same  objection ;  in  which  God 
is  said  to  see,  and  Aear,  -lorite  his  laics  on  nature^  im- 
press his  ivill  on  the  mijid,  <fc.,  expressions  which, 
equally  with  the  above,  imply  the  possession  of  phy- 
sical organs.  Seeing  is  done  with  the  eyes,  writing 
with  the  hands,  &c.,  but  the  use  of  such  language  by 
no  means  proves  the  writers  to  believe  that  God 
possesses  such  organs. 

It  is  impossible  to  speak  of  the  operations  of  the 
human  mind,  to  say  nothing  of  spiritual  things  of  a 
hiofher  order,  without  usinar  Ian2:ua2:e  in  a  fio-urative 
sense.  The  above  forms  of  expression  are,  there- 
fore, unexceptionable.     "  They  are  absolutely  neces- 

•  Eclipse  of  Faith,  p.  209 
3* 


80  INTEODUCTION". 

sary.  "Without  them  nothing  positive  can  be  as- 
serted of  God.  God  himself  has  referred  lis  to  them. 
He  who  would  get  rid  of  them  loses  God  entirely 
while  he  tries  to  purify  and  refine  his  conceptions 
of  him."* 

Though  such  language  is  freely  used  in  the  Bible, 
there  is  also  the  clearest  revelation  of  God's  in- 
finity ;  showing  the  divine  purpose,  that  the  people 
should  not  rest  in  the  form  as  literally  exact.  We 
are  thereby  most  carefully  guarded  from  the  errors 
of  materialism  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  not  less 
pernicious  errors  of  pantheism  on  the  other.  We 
are  told  that  "  God  is  a  spirit" — and  that  "  the  word 
was  made  flesh" — the  sublimest  manifestation  of  the 
Deity  ever  made  to  man  was  in  the  person  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

The  following  remarks  on  the  subject,  by  John 
Quincy  Adams,  are  worthy  of  attention.  "  An  im- 
material Deity  was  an  idea  entertained  by  the  He- 
brews alone,  of  all  the  nations  of  antiquity.  And  in 
order  to  preserve  them  from  the  errors  of  others  in 
this  respect,  one  of  their  commandments  expressly 
forbade  them  to  make  graven  images  for  objects  of 
worship.  Yet  in  their  holy  books  God  is  said  to 
have  made  man  in  his  own  image,  after  his  own 
likeness.  And  in  all  the  interpositions  of  the  Deitj^, 
with  which  their  sacred  history  abounds,  he  is  always 
represented  as  operating  by  physical  organs.  This 
has  been  made,  by  some  shallow  cavillers  against 
religion,  an  argument  to  dispute  the  authenticity  of 

*  Hengstenberg  on  the  Pentateuch. 


INTRODUCTION.  31 

the  Scriptures.  It  is  absurd,  say  they,  that  the  al- 
mighty and  eternal  Creator  of  the  universe  should 
see,  and  hear,  and  speak,  and  work,  and  rest  from 
his  labor,  like  the  mere  clod  of  humanity.  True : 
but  to  make  the  conception  of  immaterial  energies 
intelligible  to  the  capacities  of  man,  they  must  be 
presented  in  images  of  sensation.  To  show  how  im- 
possible it  is  for  the  human  mind  to  escape  from  this 
thraldom  of  sense,  examine  how  the  philosophical 
poet,  in  his  essay  on  man,  has  undertaken  to  exhibit 
the  Deity. 

"  'All  are  but  parts  of  one  stupendous  whole, 
Whose  body  nature  is,  and  God  the  soul ; 
That,  changed  through  all,  and  yet  in  all  the  same  ; 
Great  in  the  earth,  as  in  the  ethereal  frame; 
Warms  in  the  sun,  refreshes  in  the  breeze, 
Glows  in  the  stars,  and  blossoms  in  the  trees ; 
Lives  thi'ough  all  life,  extends  through  all  extent, 
Spreads  undivided,  and  operates  unspent  ; 
Breathes  in  our  soul,  informs  our  mortal  part. 
As  full,  as  perfect  in  a  hair,  as  heart; 
As  full,  as  perfect  in  vile  man,  that  mourns 
As  the  rapt  seraph,  that  adores  and  burns ; 
To  him  no  high,  no  low,  no  great,  no  small ; 
He  fills,  he  bounds,  connects,  and  equals  all.'  "* 

Pope's  Essay  on  Man,  Ess.  I. 

THE    USE    OP    THE    THIRD    PERSON. 
It  is  denied  that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch,  be- 
cause he  is  so  often  spoken  of  therein,  in  the  third 
person.     That  one  so   little  read  as  Paine  should 
make  such  an  objection,  is  not  a  matter  of  surprise, 

*  Lectures  on  Rhetoi-ic.    Vol.  II.,  p.  259. 


82  INTRODUCTION. 

but  that  astute  and  learned  German  critics  should 
propose  it,  shows  them  sadly  and  obstinately  pre- 
determined in  their  unbelief. 

If  an  answer  to  this  objection  is  at  all  needed,  it 
is  sufficient  to  say,  that  such  a  style  of  writing  is 
often  used  in  the  classics.  "  There  was  in  the  army 
a  certain  Athenian,  Xenophon,"  &c.  Anab.,  b.  iii., 
ch.  7.  "  And  Xenophon  replied,"  &c.  Mem.,  b.  i., 
oh.  3.     See  also  Caesar's  Comm. 

THE  FRAGltlENTARY  AKD  DOCUMENTS KY  THEORIES. 
The  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  of  Genesis 
particularly,  has  been  denied  on  the  assumption  that 
they  were  compiled  from  fragments  or  documents, 
and  ascribed  to  Moses,  but  really  belonging  to  a 
later  age.  Of  the  Pentateuch,  it  is  said,  "  the  order, 
the  arrangement  of  the  parts,  is  very  peculiar.  It  is 
not  strictly  regular,  and  connected  ;  but  often  abrupt 
and  almost  unnatural ;  it  often  consists  of  successive 
fragments,  broken,  unconnected,  and  these  are  some- 
times wound  up  with  distinct  conclusions.""^  From 
this  fact,  it  is  assumed  that  the  books  were  compilea 
from  fragments  of  previously  existing  histories.  But 
this  conclusion  does  not  follow  from  the  premises. 
The  fragmentary  character  of  the  books,  so  far  as  i\ 
appears,  is  easily  accounted  for.  They  were  written 
during  the  arduous  labors  of  Moses  as  governor  of 
the  Jewish  nation,  and  their  broken,  disconne^Jted 
style,  is  just  what  we  should  expect  under  the  cir- 


Jahn. 


INTRODUCTION".  33 

cumstances;  it  is,  indeed,  a  valuable  internal  evi- 
dence of  their  genuineness. 

But  there  is  another  theory  on  this  subject ;  ori- 
ginating, we  believe,  with  De  Wette,  namely,  that 
the  Pentateuch  was  compiled  from  two  pre-existing 
documents, — the  Jehovah  and  the  Elohim  documents. 
This  assumption  is  made  because  in  certain  passages 
the  Deity  is  spoken  of  by  the  name  Jehovah^  in 
others  by  the  name  Elohim  (God) ;  a  very  slight 
basis,  one  would  think,  for  a  theory  involving  such 
a  serious  consequence  as  the  genuineness  of  the 
sacred  books. 

We  shall  give  the  reasons  why  these  two  names 
were  applied  to  God,  when  we  come  to  examine 
Ex.  vi.  3  ;  meanwhile,  we  remark,  that  they  are  used 
in  such  relations,  and  are  so  intimately  connected  in 
many  passages,  as  to  afford  in  that  way  a  sufficient 
refutation  of  the  theory.  For  instance,  in  Gen.  vii. 
16,  it  is  said,  "  And  they  that  went  in,  went  in  male 
and  female  of  all  flesh,  as  God  (Elohim)  had  com- 
manded him ;  and  the  Lord  (Jehovah)  shut  him  in." 
The  two  names  are  used  in  one  sentence,  and  this 
sentence  could  not  have  been  constructed  from  two 
distinct  documents.  Again,  in  Gen.  ii.  and  iii.  chaps., 
the  two  names  are  connected — Lord  God  (Jehovah 
Elohim);  completely  refuting  the  documentary 
theory. 

But  whether  the  Pentateuch  was  written  in  part 
from  pre-existing  documents,  or  otherwise,  it  is,  as 
we  now  have  it,  the  work  of  Moses,  and  divinely 
authenticated. 


34  INTRODUCTION". 

This  cannot  be  denied  without  invalidating  the 
whole  Scripture  canon.  The  New  Testament  pro- 
ceeds on  the  authenticity  of  the  books  of  Moses. 
See  Matt.  v.  17,  21,  27;  xix.  4,  5;  xxiv.  88,  39- 
Eom.  V.  14,  16  :  Heb.  xi.  3,  4 :  2  Pet.  ii.  5,  &c.  The 
existence  of  these  books  may  be  traced  through  the 
entire  history  of  the  Jews.  Amos,  living  about  780 
B.  C,  alludes  to  and  quotes  them.  Compare  Amos 
ii.  10,  with  Deut.  xxix.  5  ;  ch.  ii.  11,  12,  with  Num. 
vi. ;  ch.  iv.  4,  with  Num.  xxviii.  3,  and  Deut.  xiv.  28. 
We  can  trace  these  books  also  through  the  times  of 
the  Kings.  Compare  1  Kings  xviii.  23,  33,  with 
Lev.  i.  6-8 ;  ch.  xx.  42,  with  Lev.  xxvii.  29.  The 
history  of  the  Judges  gives  evidence  of  the  existence 
of  the  Pentateuch.  Compare  Jud.  i.  20,  with  Num. 
xiv.  30 ;  ch.  v.  4,  with  Deut.  xxxiii.  2.  On  these 
several  points  let  the  reader  consult  a  Reference 
Bible,  and  he  will  find  the  evidence  full  and  satis- 
factory, the  above  being  but  a  few  of  the  many  pas- 
sages which  may  be  cited  in  proof.  Tracing,  then, 
the  existence  of  the  books  up  to  a  close  proximity 
with  the  age  of  Moses,  the  supposition  of  their  being 
forged  becomes  preposterous  and  untenable.  But  it 
is  declared  that  the  books  came  directly  from  the 
hand  of  Moses,  and  that  an  autograph  copy  was 
placed  in  the  archives  of  the  nation.  Deut.  xvii.  18, 
19  ;  xxxi.  24-26.  Thus  would  they  have  borne 
testimony  against  themselves,  had  they  been  im- 
posed upon  the  people  at  any  later  age,  or  by  any 
other  authority  than  that  of  Moses.  Indeed,  such 
an  imposition  was  rendered  impossible. 


INTRODUCTION.  85 

Moreover,  these  books  contain  the  civil  and  eccle- 
siastical laws,  and  religious  institutions  of  the  na- 
tion, with  an  account  of  their  origin  and  the  source 
of  their  authority ;  these  gave  shape  and  character 
to  the  nation,  making  them  a  distinct  and  peculiar 
people  amid  all  the  nations  of  the  earth,  so  that 
wherever  Jews  are  found,  they  are  a  living  proof  of 
the  existence  of  the  books  of  Moses.  This  has  been 
true  in  every  age.  Indeed,  without  these  books,  the 
Jews,  as  such,  could  have  never  had  an  existence. 
And  we  find  in  this  fact,  an  unanswerable  argument, 
if  no  other  existed,  of  the  genuineness  and  authen- 
ticity of  the  Pentateuch. 

THE  MYTHICAL  THEORY  OF  STRAUS. 

Steaus,  in  his  Life  of  Christ,  assumes  that  the 
Gospels  are  nothing  more  than  a  collection  of  myths 
and  legends,  wrought  into  consecutive  form  ;  that 
the  several  narratives  are  not  the  work  of  a  few  in- 
dividuals, but  rather  the  outgrowth  of  the  Jewish 
mind,  and,  consequently,  not  inspired  or  divinely 
authenticated. 

This  theory,  though  adopted  by  some  infidels  of 
our  country,  has  not  received  much  favor  on  this 
side  of  the  Atlantic.  Neander,  in  his  Life  of  Christ, 
has  fully  examined  and  satisfactorily  met  Straus' 
objections  to  the  Gospel  narratives,  and  to  that  work 
we  refer  the  reader  who  desires  to  see  a  thorough 
discussion  of  the  question.  We  shall  confine  our 
remarks  on  the  subject  to  a  few  points. 

1.  The  theory  of  Straus  is  a  mere  as-nrnption.     It 


36  mTEODUCTION. 

is  witliout  proof.  The  difficulties  on  wliicli  he 
grounds  his  opposition  to  the  Gospels,  are  not  re- 
lieved by  it,  (unless  the  substitution  of  others  of  a 
more  serious  character  be  a  relief,)  and  they  may  be 
removed  without  it ;  so  that  it  is  entirely  uncalled 
for  and  gratuitous. 

2.  The  plain,  prosaic,  simple  manner  of  the  nar- 
ratives ;  their  detailed  account  of  many  occurrences ; 
the  correspondence  of  their  style  with  the  character 
of  their  authors,  together  with  the  fact,  that  the  wri- 
ters relate  much  which  they  actually  saw  and  heard, 
precludes  the  suppositions  of  myths  and  legends. 

3.  The  abundant  evidence,  internal  and  external, 
of  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  the  Gospels, 
constitutes  an  unanswerable  objection  to  the  assump- 
tions of  Straus.     See  Paleifs  Evidences. 

4.  The  age  of  Christ  was  inadequate  to  the  pro- 
duction of  the  Gospels.  It  is  impossible  to  con- 
ceive of  them  as  the  outgrowth  of  the  Jewish  mind. 
Eflects  cannot  exceed  the  causes  which  produce 
them,  streams  cannot  rise  higher  than  their  foun- 
tains. But  the  character  of  Christ,  as  given  in  the 
Gospels,  is  far  superior  to  the  age  in  which  he  lived ; 
the  combined  greatness  of  that,  and  all  preceding 
ages,  could  not  equal  him.  "  The  picture  of  the 
life  of  Christ,  which  has  been  handed  down  to  us, 
does  not  exhibit  the  spirit  of  that  age,  but  a  far 
higher  spirit,  which,  manifesting  itself  in  the  linea- 
ments of  the  picture,  exerted  a  regenerating  in- 
fluence not  only  on  that  age,  but  on  all  succeeding 


INTRODUCTION.  87 

generations.  The  image  of  human  perfection,  con- 
cretely presented  in  the  life  of  Christ,  stands  in 
manifold  contradiction  to  the  tendencies  of  hu- 
manity at  that  period ;  no  one  of  them,  no  combina- 
tion of  them,  dead,  as  they  were,  could  account  for 
it.  Whence,  then,  in  that  impure  age,  came  such  a 
picture,  (a  picture  which  the  age  itself  could  not 
completely  understand,  of  which  the  age  could  only 
now  and  then  seize  a  congenial  trait  to  make  a  cari- 
cature of,)  the  contemplating  of  which  raised  the  hu- 
man race  of  that,  and  following  ages,  to  a  new  de- 
velopment of  spiritual  life?  The  study  of  this 
picture  has  given  a  new  view  of  the  destiny  of  hu- 
manity; a  new  conception  of  what  the  ideal  of 
human  virtue  should  be,  and  a  new  theory  of 
morals :  all  which  vanish,  however,  when  we  with- 
draw our  gaze  from  its  lineaments.  The  spirit  of 
ethics,  which  had  taken  to  itself  only  certain  fea- 
tures of  the  picture — broken  from  their  connection 
with  the  whole — and  was  corrupted  by  foreign  ele- 
ments that  had  bound  themselves  up  with  the  Chris- 
tian consciousness,  was  purified  again  in  contem- 
plating the  unmutilated  historical  Prototype  in  the 
days  of  the  Eeformation.  And  whenever  the  spirit 
of  the  age  cuts  itself  loose,  either  in  the  popular 
turn  of  thought,  or  in  the  schools  of  philosophy, 
from  this  historical  relation,  it  estranges  itself  also 
from  the  ethics  of  Christianity,  sets  up  a  new  and 
different  ideal  of  perfection  from  that  which  the 
revelation  of  Christ  has  grounded  in  the  conscious- 
4 


88  INTRODUCTION". 

ness  of  man."^  If  this  picture  is  not  real^  then 
is  the  production  of  it  by  human  hands,  and  the 
effects  following  its  creation,  a  more  astounding 
miracle  than  any  ever  ascribed  to  Jehovah.  No  ! 
No !  We  have  pictures  of  philosophers  and  great 
men  of  every  age,  but  this  is,  verily,  the  picture  of 
a  God. 

*  Neander's  Life  of  Christ. 


THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED 

AGAINST  THE  OBJECTIONS  OF  INFIDELITY. 


Objecfioi]^  h^^eh  iipcii  ii)e   015  Je^fqi7]Ci]f. 


GENESIS. 


Gen.  L  1. — In  the  beginning  God  created 
the  heaven  and  the  earth. 

The  first  objection  brought  by  geologists  against 
the  Bible  is,  that  it  fixes  the  date  of  the  original 
creation  but  six  or  eight  thousand  years  ago,  which 
that  science  teaches  is  not  true. 

This  is  a  misrepresentation:  It  declares,  simply, 
that  God  originally  "  created  the  heaven  and  the 
earth,"  "in  the  beginning;"  but,  whether  this  begin- 
ning was  the  commencement  of  time,  or  when,  is  not 
said  ;  how  far  back  it  was  before  the  creation  of  man, 
or  before  the  present  geological  period,  we  have  no 
data  for  computation.  As  this  account  of  the  crea- 
tion  was   merely  incidental  to  the  great  object  of 

(39) 


40       THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

revelation,  it  was  not  consistent  that  all  its  particu- 
lars should  be  here  detailed. 

Gen.  i.  2. — And  the  earth  was  without  form 
and  void ;  and  darkness  was  upon  the  face  of 
the  deep;  and  the  Spirit  of  God  moved  upon 
the  face  of  the  waters. 

"  Without  form  and  void^''  i.  e.,  desolate,  confused, 
in  a  chaotic  condition.  How  long  the  earth  was  in 
this  chaotic  state — or  what  time  elapsed  between  the 
original  creation  and  this  state — or  by  what  pro- 
cesses the  world  reached  this  chaotic  condition^are 
points  upon  which  we  have  no  revelation ;  and  it 
does  no  violence  to  the  text  to  suppose  that,  between 
the  original  creation,  and  the  period  introduced 
by  the  second  verse,  the  earth  passed  through 
several  geological  ages.  This  sufficiently  answers 
all  objections  to  the  Bible,  founded  on  the  extreme 
antiquity  of  the  globe  indicated  by  geology. 

If  it  be  said  that  there  is  no  evidence  of  such  a 
chaos  now  discoverable ;  that  the  unbroken  succes- 
sion of  fossils  and  geological  phenomena — and  that 
the  old  coast  line  of  England,  Niagara  Falls,  &c., 
forbid  the  supposition  of  such  a  chaotic  period;  we 
reply,  1.  That  chaos  may  have  been  of  short  dura- 
tion, so  as  not  to  interfere  with  the  succession  of 
geological  phenomena;  2.  The  old  coast  line  of 
England,  Niagara  Falls,  and  like  phenomena,  may 
have  existed  during  that  chaos,  and,  at  best,  the  argu- 
ment from  their  appearances  rests  upon  so  slender  a 


GENESIS.  41 

basis,  and  is  open  to  so  many  objections  as  to  render 
it  very  doubtful  indeed ;  3.  There  could  be,  in  the 
nature  of  the  case,  no  evidence  of  a  chaos  left  upon 
the  globe. 

Previous  to  entering  upon  a  consideration  of  the 
succeeding  verses,  we  shall  offer  a  few  remarks  upon 
the  present  condition  of  geology  as  a  science,  and 
its  relation  to  the  Mosaic  account  of  creation. 

1.  Every  system  of  geology  now  received  is  open 
to  serious  objections  and  insuperable  difficulties. 
As  a  science  it  is  yet  in  its  infancy,  and  liable  to 
constant  changes  as  new  facts  are  discovered.  As 
dogmatically  as  we  may  assert  and  maintain  our_ 
theories,  they  must  yield  with  the  advance  of  know- 
ledge. "A  stray  splinter  of  cone-bearing  wood 
— a  fish's  scull  or  tooth,  the  vertebra  of  a  reptile, 
the  humerus  of  a  bird,  the  jaw  of  a  quadruped 
— all,  any  of  these  things,  weak  and  insignificant  as 
they  may  seem,  become  in  such  a  quarrel,  too  strong 
for  us  and  our  theory,  the  puny  fragment  in  the  grasp 
of  truth  forms  as  irresistible  a  weapon  as  the  dry 
bone  did  in  that  of  Samson  of  old,  and  our  slaughtered 
sophisms  lie  piled  up,  'heaps  on  heaps,'  before  it."^ 

This  should  lead  us  to  receive,  with  great  cau- 
tion, the  theories  and  speculations  of  geologists. 

2.  Geology  tells  us  the  present  condition  of  the 
earth,  but  the  processes  by  which  it  reached  that 
condition  it  does  not,  and  cannot  reveal.  "  It  fur- 
nishes no  clue  by  which  to  unravel  the  unapproach- 

*  Foot  Prints,  p.  313. 


42       THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

able  mysteries  of  creation;  these  mysteries  belong 
to  the  wondrous  Creator,  and  to  him  only.  We 
attempt  to  theorize  upon,  and  to  reduce  them  to 
law,  and  all  nature  rises  up  against  us  in  our  pre- 
sumptuous rebellion."* 

3.  "  Let  it  be  remembered  that  there  is  no  absolute 
chronometer  in  geology,  and  I  very  much  doubt 
whether  there  is  a  fixed  relative  one  among  fossili- 
ferous  rocks,  because  there  are  fossil  remains  com- 
mon to  them  all;  and  again,  fossils  innumerable  are 
common,  both  to  tertiary  and  secondary  strata ;  a  fact 
that  repudiates  the  assumed  distinction.  The  statics 
of  a  sound  chronology  being  absent,  prudence  would 
require  us  to  be  cautious  and  less  dogmatical  in  a 
science  confessedly  of  intense  interest,  but  compara- 
tively young  in  age.  Besides,  fossiliferous  rocks  are 
local^  not  circumambient."f 

4.  Many  of  the  conclusions  of  geologists  depend 
upon  analogical  reasoning,  which  is  not  always  a 
trustworthy  mode  of  argumentation.  "  Analogy  is 
an  unsafe  ground  of  reasoning ;  and  its  conclusions 
should  be  seldom  received,  without  some  degree  of 
distrust.":f  "It  may  afford  a  greater  or  less  degree 
of  probability,  according  as  the  things  compared 
are  more  or  less  similar  in  their  nature.  But  it 
ought  to  be  observed,  that,  as  this  kind  of  reasoning 
can  afford  only  probable  evidence,  at  best,  so,  unless 
great  caution  be  used,  we  are  apt  to  be  led  into  error 

*  Miller's  Foot  Prints,  &c.     See  note  on  Gen.  viii.  1. 
j-  Murray's  Truth  of  Revelation.     J  Hedge's  Logic. 


GENESIS.  43 

by  it.  For  we  are  naturally  disposed  to  conceive  a 
greater  similitude  between  things  than  there  really 
is."  * 

5.  "  In  order  to  interpret  the  Mosaic  cosmogony 
aright,  another  fact  to  be  borne  in  mind  is,  that 
every  visible  object  is  spoken  of,  not  according  to 
its  scientific  character — that  would  have  been  not 
merely  improper  but  impossible,  except  at  the  price 
of  consistency — but  optically^  or  according  to  its 
appearance ;  just  as,  with  all  our  knowledge  of  the 
solar  system,  we  speak,  even  in  scientific  works,  of 
the  sun  as  rising  and  setting.  *  -J^-  *  *  -5^  And 
if  to  this  optical  mode  of  description  it  be  objected 
that  as  there  was  no  human  spectator,  the  account 
can  only  be  received  and  interpreted  as  an  allego- 
rical representation,  we  reply  that  it  is  the  very 
method  of  answering  its  great  design — that  of  being 
popularly  intelligible ;  and  that  the  way  in  which  it 
becomes  both  intelligible  and  vividly  graphic  is  by 
placing  the  reader,  in  imagination,  in  the  position  of 
a  spectator."  f 

We  have  already  suggested  a  mode  of  removing 
geological  objections  to  the  Bible,  i.  e.,  the  supposition 
of  an  indefinite  period  between  the  first  and  second 
verses  of  Gen.  i.  And  that  all  geological  changes 
necessary  to  reduce  the  world  from  a  state  of  chaos 
to  a  condition  fit  for  the  residence  of  man  occurred  in 


*  Jamison's  Logic.     See  also  Butler's  Ana.   Introduc.  Chalmers' 
Post.  Works,  Vol.  IX.,  p.  58,  and  Upham's  Ment.  Phil.  p.  1,  c.  XI. 
f  Man  Primeval,  pp.  11,  12. 


44       THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

six  literal  days.  This  theory  originated  with  Dr. 
Chalmers.  Dr.  J.  P.  Smith  suggests  another.*  He 
admits  the  former,  but  supposes  the  chaos  mentioned 
in  the  second  verse  not  to  have  been  universal,  but 
local ;  confined  to  a  small  portion  of  the  earth  in 
which  man  first  appeared.  This  theory  obviates  the 
objection  mentioned  under  verse  second. 

There  is  another  theory  which  assumes  that 
the  word  day,  translated  day  in  the  first  chapter, 
signifies  an  indefinite  period.  In  v.  5,  it  is  said, 
"  the  evening  and  the  morning  were  the  first  day^  lite- 
rally— one  day.  The  numerical  one  (Heb.  ahad,)  is 
used  in  the  sense  of  certain,  peculiar,  special ;  it  is  so 
used  in  Dan.  viii.  13  :  Eze.  vii.  5  :  Cant.  vi.  9  :  Gen. 
XXX vii.  20:  1  Kings  xix.  4;  xx.  13. 

"  Now  if  this  sense  may  be  admitted  in  the  pre- 
sent passage,  (Gen.  i.  5,)  to  which  we  see  no  valid 
objection,  the  meaning  will  be,  that  the  evening  and 
the  morning  constituted  a  certain,  a  special,  Si  peculiar 
day,  a  day  stii  generis ;  in  other  words,  a  period  of 
time  of  indefinite  length.  For  that  the  Heb.  yom, 
day,  is  repeatedly  used  in  the  indefinite  sense  of 
ejwch  or  period,  no  one  will  question  who  is  at  all 
acquainted  with  the  Scriptural  idiom.  Thus  in  the 
very  first  instance,  in  which  it  occurs  after  the  his- 
tory of  the  six  days'  work,  as  if  to  furnish  us  with 
authority  for  such  a  rendering,  we  find  it  employed 
in  a  collective  sense  to  denote  the  whole  six  days' 
period  of  the  creation ;  '  these  are  the  generations 

*  Gcol.  and  Gen. 


GENESIS.  45 

of  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  in  the  day  (heyom)  that 
the  Lord  God  made  the  earth  and  the  heavens.'  So 
in  Job  xviii.  20,  it  appears  to  be  put  for  the  whole 
period  of  man's  life ;  '  thej  that  come  after  him 
shall  be  astonied  at  his  day  {yomer-^^  and  in  Isa.  xxx. 
8,  for  all  future  time ;  '  now  go  note  it  in  a  book, 
that  it  may  be  for  the  time  to  come^  (lit.  for  ike  latter 
day^  for  ever  and  ever.'  In  like  manner  the  phrase, 
*  the  day  of  the  Lord,'  so  often  occurring,  undoubt- 
edly denotes  a  period  of  indeterminate  length.  To 
this  it  may  indeed  be  objected,  that  the  day  here 
spoken  of  is  said  to  have  been  made  up  of  evening 
and  morning;  and  how,  it  will  be  asked,  could  a 
single  evening  and  morning  constitute  a  day  of 
indefinite  duration  ?  To  this  we  reply,  that  nothing 
is  more  common  in  Hebrew  than  to  find  the  singular 
used  in  a  collective  sense  equivalent  to  the  plural. 
When  it  is  said,  therefore,  that  '  evening  and  the 
morning  were  a  certain  day,'  we  understand  it  as 
equivalent  to  saying,  that  a  series  or  succession  of 
evenings  and  mornings  (Gr.  nuchthemera^  twenty- 
four  hour  days)  constituted  a  peculiar  kind  of  day,  a 
period  of  undefined  extent;  and  so  of  the  subse- 
quent days  of  the  creative  week;  the  sense  of  the 
common  day  being  really  involved  in  that  of  the 
other ;  or  in  other  words,  each  of  the  six  indefinite 
days  or  periods  being  made  up  of  an  equally  inde- 
finite number  of  common  or  twenty-four  hour  days. 
It  is  doubtless  under  some  disadvantages  that  this 
interpretation  is  thus  briefly  and  nakedly  proposed, 
but  as  our  limits  will  not  allow  enlargement,  we 


46       THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

have  no  alternative  but  to  leave  it  to  commend  itself 
as  best  it  may  to  tlie  judgment  of  the  reader.  By 
the  author  it  has  not  been  rashly  adopted."'^ 

To  this  it  is  objected,  that  the  Scriptures  state^ 
"  God  made  all  things  in  six  days  and  rested  on  the 
seventh  day ;  wherefore,  Jehovah  blessed  the  Sab- 
bath day  and  hallowed  it ;"  but  this  language  does 
not  compel  us  to  understand  literally  the  word  day. 
A  too  rigid  adherence  to  the  letter  of  the  law  would 
involve  us  in  serious  difficulties.  If  nothing  more 
nor  less  than  twenty-four  hours  can  be  meant  by 
the  term  day,  then  that  whole  period  must  be  kept 
as  the  Sabbath,  and  every  seventh  twenty-four 
hours  exactly  from  the  beginning ;  this  would  de- 
mand a  divine  mode  of  reckoning:  moreover,  the 
change  of  the  Sabbath  from  the  seventh  to  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  is,  by  such  rigid  interpretation, 
encumbered  Avith  serious  difficulties.  It  is  said 
God  "  rested  from  all  his  labor"  on  the  seventh  day ; 
if  this  means  the  seventh  twenty-four  hours,  then  it 
would  imply  that  he  resumed  his  labor  on  the 
eighth  day — the  beginning  of  a  new  week.  But 
from  what  did  he  rest?  Not  from  the  work  of 
sustaining  and  directing  the  worlds  he  had  made — 
not  from  the  work  of  providence — but  he  rested 
(literally  ceased)  from  the  work  of  creation ;  and  as 
he  never  resumed  that  work,  he  is  still  resting,  or, 
more  properly,  that  cessation  still  continues  during 
this  seventh  period  of  time. 

*  Busli  on  Gen.,  p.  32. 


GENESIS.  47 

The  meaning  of  the  law  is,  that  one-seventh  of 
man's  time  is  to  be  consecrated  specially  to  religious 
worship :  this  is  seen  from  other  sacred  seasons,  as  the 
seventh  year,  the  seventh-seventh  year,  or  Jubilee. 
During  six  periods  of  time  was  God  engaged  in  the 
work  of  creation,  on  the  seventh  he  rested  ;  therefore, 
during  six  periods,  or  portions  of  man's  time,  may 
he  work,  but  the  seventh  must  be  a  Sabbath  unto 
the  Lord. 

We  do  not  wish  it  to  be  understood  that  this 
theory  is  essentially  necessary  to  reconcile  the  Mo- 
saic account  of  creation  with  a  scientific  cosmogony ; 
we  present  it  as  one  of  the  theories  of  reconciliation ; 
we  have  alluded  to  others,  and  shall  notice  still 
another  in  its  proper  place. 

Gen.  i.  3. — And  God  said  let  there  be  light. 

When  violent  chemicajl  action  was  excited  among 
the  chaotic  elements,  such  as  would  be  necessary  to 
reduce  them  to  order,  there  must  have  been  evolved 
in  great  profusion  the  imponderable  agents — light, 
heat  and  electricity,  which  must  have  encircled  the 
globe  with  a  brilliant  photosphere.  Sir  AYilliam 
Ilerschel  thought,  perhaps,  "  the  Aurora  borealis 
and  the  Aurora  australis,  the  lights  which  even  still 
hover  about  our  earth,  where  the  atmosphere  is  dry 
and  favorable  for  the  exhibition  of  electrical  phe- 
nomena, are  faint  remains  of  that  light  which  once 
invested  our  world." 


48       THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

Gen.  i.  5. — And  God  called  the  light  day, 
and  the  darkness  he  called  night. 

This,  says  the  infidel,  cannot  be  true,  as  the  sun 
was  not  made  until  the  fourth  day,  and  there  could 
be  no  day  without  the  sun. 

1.  This  objection  assumes  a  greater  knowledge  of 
the  condition  of  things  at  that  time  than  is  war- 
ranted by  our  sources  of  information. 

2.  It  is  not  true  that  there  could  be  no  day  with- 
out the  sun. 

3.  It  is  not  said  that  the  sun,  as  a  body,  was 
created  on  the  fourth  day,  but  that  it  was  then  ap- 
pointed for  a  special  purpose.  It  may  have  existed  as 
a  part  of  the  solar  system  before  that  time.  See  note 
on  Gen.  i.  16. 

Gen.  i.  11. — And  God  said,  let  the  earth 
bring  forth  grass,  the  herb  yielding  seed,  and 
the  fruit  tree  yielding  fruit  after  his  kind, 
whose  seed  is  in  itself,  upon  the  earth;  and  it 
was  so. 

Modern  chemistry  teaches  that  the  first  atmos- 
phere must  have  abounded  in  carbonic  acid,  this 
gas  being  the  last  to  enter  into  combinations.  But 
this  was  particularly  favorable  to  the  development 
of  plants.  The  earth,  with  its  high  temperature, 
abundance  of  water,  its  atmosphere  surrounded  by 
a  brilliant  photosphere  and  highly  charged  with 
carbonic  acid,  afforded  intense  stimulus  to  vegeta- 


GENESIS.  49 

tion,  whicli  must  liave  been  of  a  character  never 
equalled,  for  never  since  have  conditions  been  so 
favorable  for  its  development.  This  profuse  and 
excessive  vegetation  would  soon  reduce  the  atmos- 
phere to  a  condition  fitted  for  the  support  of  animal 
life.  That  such  a  period  of  gigantic  flora  did  exist 
in  the  infancy  of  the  world,  the  researches  of  geology 
place  beyond  all  doubt.  The  evidences  of  it  are 
found  all  through  the  Paleozoic  age. 

Gen.  i.  16. — And  God  made  two  great 
lights ;  the  greater  light  to  rule  the  day,  and 
the  lesser  light  to  rule  the  night ;  He  made 
the  stars  also. 

Infidels  object  to  this  passage,  that  it  makes  the 
creation  of  the  sun  and  planets  subsequent  to  that  of 
the  earth,  which,  according  to  science,  could  not  be. 

But  the  text  teaches  us  no  such  thing.  It,  with 
the  context,  says,  "  God  made  two  great  lights,  lite- 
rally lighters  or  light-hearers^  and  set  or  appointed 
them  for  special  purposes  therein  described."  It  is 
said,  "  he  made  the  stars  also,"  but  what  stars  they 
were,  or  when  made,  we  are  not  informed. 

Gen.  i.  27. — And  God  made  great  whales, 
and  everj^  living  creature  that  moveth,  which 
the  waters  brought  forth  abundantly  after 
their  kind,   and   every  winged  fowl   after  his 

kind  ;    and  God  saw  that  it  was  good. 

5 


50       THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

The  eartli  was  now  fitted  by  preceding  geological 
processes,  not  only  for  the  support  of  animals,  but 
for  their  monstrous  growth  and  rapid  multiplication. 
Accordingly,  the  text  seems  to  speak  of  the  second- 
ary age  when,  geology  tells  us,  monsters  of  the 
deep,  gigantic  birds,  enormous  reptiles,  as  ichthyo- 
saurs,  plesiasaurs,  cetiasaurs,  &c.,  &c.,  reveled  in  the 
luxuriant  vegetation  of  the  earth,  or  sported  in  its 
seas  and  oceans;  and  whose  huge  fossils  are  found 
throQghoat  the  cretaceous,  oolitic,  trias  and  carboni- 
ferous formations  which  make  up  that  age. 

We  might  point  out  still  further  the  agreement 
of  science  with  this  course  of  creation,  but  as  we 
have  chosen  rather  to  meet  the  objections  of  infi- 
delity, we  shall  pass  the  subject  with  this  remark. 
A¥e  have  accounts  of  the  origin  of  the  world  from 
Egyptians,  Greeks,  Brahmins  and  Chinese,  from 
Sanconiathan  to  the  Edda,  yet  this  account  by  Moses, 
older  than  them  all,  is  the  only  one  that  agrees  with 
modern  science.  And  this  simple,  unscientific  nar- 
rative, written  for  popular  use,  is  found,  after  the 
lapse  of  thousands  of  years,  to  accord  better  with 
the  latest  developments  of  science  than  many  scien- 
tific treatises  written  a  century  ago.  Why  is  this  ? 
Can  infidels  explain  it  ? 

It  is  but  just  to  say,  that  there  are  many  who  do 
not  receive  either  of  the  foregoing  geological  theo- 
ries, bnt  believe  the  creation  occupied  only  six 
literal  days,  and  that  all  the  existing  strata  were 
formed  and  deposited  in  their  present  position  in  the 
period   between   the  commencement  of  tlie  creation 


GENESIS.  61 

and  subsidence  of  the  deluge.  This  theory  is 
opposed  to  the  preceding  views,  only  so  far  as  it 
supposes  the  final  results  were  brought  about  not  by 
slowly  operating  natural  forces  merely,  but  that  the 
processes  were  accelerated  by  the  interposition  of 
divine  power.  Nor  is  such  an  interposition  incon- 
sistent with  the  divine  character ;  the  present  struc- 
ture of  the  earth's  crust  exerts  an  important  influ- 
ence on  the  condition  of  its  inhabitants,  and  is, 
doubtless,  the  result  of  causes  designed  to  give  it 
that  form.  It  is  contended,  that  all  the  elements  of 
existing  strata  are  not  found  in  the  primitive  rocks 
from  which  they  are  said  to  be  derived ;  that  no 
known  forces  could  have  disinteorrated  the  orio-inal 
igneous  crust  of  the  earth  in  any  length  of  time ; 
that  no  natural  forces  could  have  separately  deposited 
alumine,  silex,  salt,  lime,  coal,  &c.,  or  diffused  par- 
ticular strata  over  large  spaces ;  and  that  the  denu- 
dations and  flexions  of  many  strata  prove  they  were 
formed  rapidly,  in  short  periods  of  time.  lor  these 
and  other  plausible  reasons  the  other  theories  are 
rejected  and  a  new  one  formed,  which  we  need  not 
detail  here. 

Enough  has  been  said,  doubtless,  to  convince  the 
reader  of  two  things  : — 

1.  That  these  theories,  so  various — so  conflictinof 
— yet  separately  sustained  by  the  most  eminent  geo- 
logists, proves  how  little  certainty  attaches  to  much 
of  the  teachings  of  this  science. 

2.  That  he  'who   asserts  (as   has  been   asserted). 


52       THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

that  geology  contradicts  the  Bible,  is  ignorant  of  the 
subject,  or  utters  what  he  knows  to  be  false. 

Gen.  i.  26.— And  God  said,  let  us  make  man 
in  our  image,  after  our  likeness  :  and  let  them 
have  dominion  over  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and 
over  the  fowl  of  the  air,  and  over  the  cattle, 
and  over  all  the  earth,  and  every  creeping 
thing  that  creepeth  upon  the  earth. 

It  has  been  said  that  this  text  teaches  that  God 
has  such  a  body  as  man  possesses,  and  consequently  is 
a  being  of  body  and  parts.  This  arises  from  a  misun- 
derstanding of  the  phrase  image  of  God.  These 
words  signify — 1,  the  natural  image,  as  an  immortal, 
spiritual  being — 2,  the  moral  image,  "  in  righteous- 
ness and  true  holiness,"  and  3,  the  political  image, 
having  dominion  over  all  the  earth. 

Gen.  ii.  3. — And  God  blessed  the  seventh 
day,  and  sanctified  it :  because  that  in  it  he 
had  rested  from  all  his  work  which  God 
created  and  made. 

There  is  no  contradiction,  as  infidels  pretend, 
between  this  text  and  John  v.  7,  "  My  Father  work- 
eth  hitherto  and  I  work."  The  former  referring  to 
a  cessation  from  creating  and  making^  and  the  latter 
to  the  ceaseless  workings  of  providence. 

The  division  of  time  into  periods  of  seven  days 


GENESIS.  53 

is  perfectly  arbitrary,  depending  on  no  natural  phe- 
nomena whatever,  yet  it  is  found  among  Egyptians, 
Greeks,  Komans,  Goths,  Hindoos,  &c.,  &c.;  a  fact 
totally  inexplicable  but  on  the  ground  of  the  anti- 
quity and  authenticity  of  the  Scriptures. 

Gen.  ii.  7. — -And  the  Lord  God  formed  man 
•of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  and  breathed  into 
his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life;  and  man  be- 
came a  living  soul. 

21. — And  the  Lord  God  caused  a  deep 
sleep  to  fall  upon  Adam,  and  he  slept ;  and  he 
took  one  of  his  ribs,  and  closed  up  the  flesh 
instead  thereof. 

22. — And  the  rib,  which  the  Lord  God  had 
taken  from  man,  made  he  a  woman,  and 
brought  her  unto  the  man. 

This  account  of  man's  origin  is  contradictory  (as 
a  celebrated  infidel  has  asserted),  to  the  account  given 
in  Gen.  i.  27,  28.  There  is  nothing  in  the  one  which 
is  contrary  to  the  other. 

In  the  first  chapter  is  stated  briefly  the  fact,  tliat 
God  made  the  first  man  and  woman  on  the  sixth 
day;  after  closing  the  general  account  of  creation, 
the  writer  returns  to  speak  more  particularly  of  the 
mode  of  their  creation,  and  the  habitation  assigned 
them ;  and  he  does  this  without  contradicting,  in  the 
slightest -degree,  any  part  of  his  former  statement. . 
5* 


54       THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

Gen.  ii.  9. — And  out  of  the  ground  made 
the  Lord  God  to  grow  eveiy  tree  that  is  pleas- 
ant to  the  sight,  and  good  for  food  j  the  tree 
of  life  also  in  the  midst  of  the  garden,  and 
the  tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and  evil. 

The  tree  of  life.  Doubtless,  so  called,  because, 
"  serving  as  a  visible  sign  or  pledge  of  the  contin- 
uance to  him  of  a  blessed  natural  life,  as  long  as  he 
should  continue  obedient.  Regarded  in  this  light 
he  undoubtedly  often  ate  of  the  fruit  of  the  tree 
before  his  fall,  not  perhaps  as  a  means  of  sustaining 
life  or  of  making  him  immortal,  but  sacramentaUi/, 
as  Christians  now  eat  the  Lord's  supper,  to  confirm 
their  faith  in  the  divine  promises,  and  as  a  symbol 
of  spiritual  blessings  imparted  to  the  soul." 

Tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and  evil.  So  called, 
because  appointed  as  the  test  of  his  goodness  and 
obedience,  and  through  which  he  came  to  know  evil. 

Gen.  ii.  19. — And  out  of  the  ground  the 
Lord  God  formed  every  beast  of  the  field,  and 
every  fowl  of  the  air,  and  brought  them  unto 
Adam  to  see  what  he  would  call  them ;  and 
whatsoever  Adam  called  every  living  creature, 
that  was  the  name  thereof. 

This  has  been  pronounced  "  zoologically  impos- 
sible;" but  the  text  states  that  it  was  done  by  the 
aid  of  divine  power,  which  at  once  obviates  all  diffi- 


GENESIS.  65 

culties  and  refutes  all  objections;  for  "all  things  are 
possible  with  God." 

Gen.  iii.  14. — And  the  Lord  God  said  unto 
the  serpent,  because  thou  hast  done  this,  thou 
art  cursed  above  all  cattle,  and  above  every 
beast  of  the  field  ;  upon  thy  belly  shalt  thou 
go,  and  dust  shalt  thou  eat  all  the  days  of  thy 
life. 

Infidels  have  always  manifested  a  great  deal  of 
sympathy  for  this  serpent.  Whether  it  is  a  fellow- 
feeling  which  makes  them  so  wondrons  kind,  we 
will  not  say;  but  certain  it  is,  they  have  made 
many  assaults  upon  the  text  and  context.  Our 
English  translators,  and  ancient  tradition,  make  the 
serpent  the  intermediate  agent  of  the  fall,  but  there 
is  now  no  means  of  determining  what  beast  it  was. 
Nor  is  this  at  all  important.  The  style  of  his  speech, 
the  terms  of  his  curse,  the  prophecy  of  his  conflict 
with  the  Messiah,  and  the  language  of  other  passages 
referring  to  him,  prove,  beyond  doubt,  tbat  it  was 
an  intelligent,  though  evil  agent,  who  assumed  a 
bodily  form  for  the  purpose  of  seducing  Eve  from 
her  innocency.  To  the  measure  of  the  curse  which 
fell  upon  the  real  agent  there  could  be  no  objection, 
but  it  has  been  objected  that  a  beast,  incapable  of 
sin  itself,  should  suffer  for  the  sin  of  another.  To  this 
we  reply : — 

1.  That  it  is  "in  accordance  with  the  usual  me- 


66       THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

thod  of  the  divine  dispensations  to  put  some  token 
of  displeasure  upon  the  instrument  of  offence,  as 
well  as  upon  the  sinner  who  employs  it."  Thus  the 
beast,  with  which  man  sinned,  was  destroyed  with 
the  sinner ;  Lev.  xx.  15.  The  golden  calf  was  burned ; 
Ex.  xxxii.  20.  The  censors  of  Korah  and  his  party 
were  condemned.  By  such  tokens  was  God's  intense 
abhorrence  of  sin  made  manifest. 

2.  There  was  no  actual  suffering  or  torture  im- 
posed upon  the  serpent.  God  certainly  had  the  right 
to  fix  its  position  in  the  scale  of  animal  life. 

3.  Dust  shalt  thou  eat.  This  is  a  figurative  expres- 
sion, denoting  a  debased,  groveling  condition: — 
"  They  (the  nations)  shall  lick  the  dust  like  a  ser- 
pent," that  is,  be  overthrown  and  disgraced. 

Gen.  iii.  16-19. — The  penalty  of  the  first  sin. 

It  has  been  objected  that  a  penalty  of  such  mag- 
nitude as  here  described,  should  be  adjudged  an 
offence  so  small. 

"  Had  he  leagured  heaven 
With  beings  powerful,  numberless,  and  dreadful, 
Strong  as  the  enginery  that  rocks  the  world, 
When  all  its  pillars  tremble,     ^     *     ^     * 

This 
Had  been  rebellion  worthy  of  the  name, 
Worthy  of  punishment.     But  what  did  man  ? 
Tasted  an  apple  I  and  the  fragile  scene, 
Eden,  and  innocence,  and  human  bliss. 
The  nectar- flowing  streams,  life-giving  fruits, 
Celestial  shades,  and  amaranthine  flowers, 
Vanish ;  and  sorrow,  toil,  and  pain,  and  death. 
Cleave  to  him  by  an  everlasting  curse." 


GENESIS.  57 

1.  Tlie  commandment  was  ligtit,  but  the  offence 
was  of  fearful  magnitude, 

2.  The  very  lightness  of  the  commandment — the 
ease  with  which  it  might  have  been  kept,  only 
aggravated  the  offence.  Had  the  temptation  been 
great,  or  the  burden  of  the  law  severe,  there  might 
have  been  some  ground  of  complaint. 

3.  It  was  distrusting  God's  word,  and  virtually 
charging  him  with  lying  and  injustice. 

4.  It  was  throwing  off  all  allegiance  to  him,  and 
cutting  themselves  loose  from  the  sole  source  of 
happiness  and  holiness. 

5.  It  was  a  disruption  of  the  harmony  of  the 
moral  government  upon  which  hangs  the  happiness 
of  untold  millions,  and  was,  so  far,  an  invasion  of 
their  rights. 

Some  have  impiously  dared  to  arraign  God  for 
placing  man  in  a  position  whence  he  was  liable  to 
fall.  But  he  was  surrounded  by  everything  con- 
ducive to  his  happiness  and  continuance  in  holiness 
had  he  so  pleased,  so  that  God  is  not  responsible  for 
his  fall.  So  far  as  human  conception  can  reach,  it 
was  impossible  that  man  should  be  a  probationary 
free  agent,  and  yet  be  irresistibly  prevented  from 
sinning.  Either  he  must  cease  to  be  a  probationer 
or  be  liable  to  fall. 

The  dissatisfaction  which  infidels  express  to  this 
account  of  the  origin  of  evil  is  very  unreasonable. 
We  know  that  evil  is  in  the  world.  The  evidences 
of  this  are  unmistakeable  and  universal.  How  did 
it   originate?     To  this   question  we  have  no  clue 


68       THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

aside  from  the  Bible,  and  without  that,  it  must  for- 
ever remain  involved  in  a  labyrinth  of  confusion. 

Gen.  iii.  20. — And  Adam  called  his  wife's 
name  Eve,  because  she  was  the  mother  of  all 
living. 

Was  or  was  to  he  the  mother  of  all  living.  The 
truth  of  this  is  denied  by  a  certain  class  of  ethno- 
logists. It  is  maintained  by  them  that  pictures, 
manuscripts,  monuments,  crania,  and  other  relics  of 
antiquity,  prove  the  existence  of  several  distinct 
races  of  men  as  far  back  as  five  thousand  and  six 
thousand  years. 

We  have  not  space  to  enter  largely  into  the  dis- 
cussion of  this  question,  and  shall,  therefore,  confine 
our  remarks  to  a  few  points. 

The  above  hypothesis  depends — 1.  Upon  the  proof 
that  these  relics  do  show  the  existence  of  different 
races  of  men — 2.  Upon  the  proof  that  these  relics 
are  of  such  remote  antiquity  as  is  claimed. 

1.  Upon  the  first  point  we  would  say  simply,  that 
it  is  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  prove  that  the 
existence  of  more  than  two  (white  and  black)  races 
was  recognized  at  any  very  early  period. 

2.  Passing  this,  the  whole  question  must  be  re- 
garded as  resting  on  the  second  point — the  antiquity 
of  these  relics.  It  is  thus  reduced  to  a  question  of 
dates.  And  here  we  discover,  that  our  opponents 
stand  on  very  questionable  ground. 

Serious  alterations  have  been  made  in  the  hiero-. 


GEXESIS.  59 

glypl^iics  of  Egyptian  relics,  and  false  dates  imposed 
thereon.  See  Eev.  Des  Deux  Mondes  Ap.  1848,  pp. 
6Q,  77;  Jan.,  1849,  pp.  87,  93. 

Gross  errors  have  also  been  discovered  in  Chinese 
and  Hindoo  manuscripts.* 

The  jealousy  between  rival  sects  and  castes  among 
ancient  nations,  each  striving  to  outstrip  the  others 
in  the  antiquity  of  its  traditions  and  the  remoteness 
of  its  origin,  was  a  fruitful  source  of  error  and  im- 
position in  their  records. 

And  it  may  well  be  doubted  too,  whether  we  have 
yet  the  true  key  to  remove  the  difficulties  of  orien- 
tal computation,  and  unlock  the  chronological  mys- 
teries of  antiquity. 

These  considerations  vitally  affect  the  theory  of 
our  ethnologists,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  evi- 
dence of  the  antiquity  and  authenticity  of  the  Bible 
is  irrefutable  and  complete. 

But  there  is  another  theory  of  the  races,  that  of 
Professor  Agassiz,  which  classifies  and  distributes 
mankind  upon  a  geographical  basis,  after  the  man- 
ner of  De  Candolle's  distribution  of  plants.f  In 
this  system  each  zone  has  its  peculiar  fauna  and 
flora, — its  own  beasts,  birds,  and  races  of  men.  This 
theory  is  based  upon  the  assumption,  that  each  spe- 
cies of  animals  and  birds  was  produced  in  the  locality 
assigned  it,  but  of  this  we  have  no  proof.     Moreover, 


*  See  note  on  Gen.  viii.  7. 

f  See  Chris.  Examiner,  1850.     Typos  of  Mankind.     Gould  .ind 
Agassiz's  Zoology. 


60       THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

the  theory  is  very  imperfect ;  men,  beasts  and  birds, 
having  so  migrated  as  to  render  it  almost  impossible 
to  fix  the  locality  of  some  races  and  species. 

But  admitting  the  facts  of  this  theory,  they  do 
not  necessarily  preclude  the  unity  of  the  races.  If 
it  be  said,  that  we  know  of  no  natural  causes  which 
could  produce  the  different  races  from  the  original 
stock ;  it  may  be  also  said,  that  we  know  of  no  natural 
causes  that  would  produce  men  and  women  sponta- 
neously in  different  localities,  so  it  is  not  more 
unphilosophical  to  attribute  the  differences  to  natu- 
ral causes  operating  on  the  primitive  stock,  than  to 
suppose,  as  does  M.  Agassiz,  men  and  women  grew 
up  spontaneously. 

But  we  shall  prove  that  the  different  races  origin- 
ated from  the  primitive  stock,  by  a  direct  exercise 
of  divine  power.  If  this  be  objected  to  as  a  miracle, 
we  reply,  that  Almighty  God,  as  the  first  cause, 
must  have  originated  the  races  by  some  means  or 
other,  and  it  is  not  less  a  miracle  to  form  them 
separately  in  different  localities,  than  to  produce  them 
from  an  original  and  uniform  stock. 

We  shall  take  up  this  discussion  again,  and  sub- 
mit the  proof  above  alluded  to  when  we  come  to 
consider  Gen.  xi,  8.  In  the  mean  while,  we  leave 
the  subject  with  this  remark.  If  natural  history 
teaches  that  there  now  exist  races  of  men  so  differ- 
ent in  complexion,  features,  osteological  formation, 
cuticular  secretions,  &;c.,  as  to  forbid  the  supposition 
that  they  proceeded  from  one  head  by  the  course  of 
natural  generation,  the  Bible  teaches  as  plainly  and 


GENESIS.  61 

positively,  that  Eve  wsls  the  mother  of  all  living 
men.  Now  to  receive  one  of  these  propositions  does 
not  necessarily  imply  the  rejection  of  the  other.  The 
natural  historian  need  not  reject  the  Bible,  nor  the 
believer  in  the  Bible  repudiate  natural  history.  If 
both  propositions  are  true,  then  there  is  some  mode 
of  reconciling  them,  even  though  that  mode  were 
now  to  us  unknown.  It  would  be  the  part  of  wis- 
dom to  acknowledge  the  truth,  and  wait  for  further 
light  to  see  our  way  out  of  the  difiiculties  involv- 
ing it. 

Gen.  iv.  16. — And  Cain  went  out  from  the 
presence  of  the  Lord,  and  dwelt  in  the  land 
of  Nod  on  the  east  of  Eden. 

It  has  been  urged  from  this  text,  that  the  Bible 
teaches  the  Lord  is  in  some  places  and  not  in  others. 
This  is  not  true.  To  seek  the  Lord,  to  stand  before  or 
in  the  presence  of  the  Lord,  to  draw  near  the  Lord,  &c., 
are  phrases  used  to  express  religious  worship,  and 
before  the  Lord,  the  presence  of  the  Lord,  sometimes 
denote  the  places  or  localities  where  such  worship 
was  performed,  and  where  there  were  special  mani- 
festations of  divine  power.  Cain  went  out  from  the 
place  of  worship  and  of  divine  manifestation. 

Gen.  iv.  17. — And  Cain  knew  his  wife,  and 
she  conceived,  and  bare  Enoch. 

"  Where  could  he  have  got  a  wife  ?"  it  has  been 
6 


62       THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

triumphantly  asked ;  "  no  daughters  of  the  first  pair 
are  mentioned  until  after  the  birth  of  Seth."  But 
this  does  not  prove  that  they  had  none.  Is  it  probable 
that  this  perfect  and  vigorous  pair  could  have  had 
but  three  children  in  one  hundred  and  thirty  years  ? 
This  would  be  a  very  absurd  position  to  take.  The 
presumption  is  they  had  many  children.  It  is  dis- 
tinctly asserted,  (Gen.  v.  4,)  that  Adam  "  begat  sons 
and  daughters,"  meaning  doubtless,  sons  and  daugh- 
ters not  named  in  any  catalogue  of  his  children, 
and  this  must  have  been  before  as  well  as  after  the 
birth  of  Seth.  Nor  did  Cain  commit  sin  by  marry- 
ing his  sister ;  there  was  a  necessity  for  such  mar- 
riages at  that  time,  and  the  law  forbidding  them  had 
not  been  given,  and  without  law  there  was  no  sin. 

Gen.  V.  27.— And  all  the  days  of  Methu- 
selah were  nine  hundred  sixty  and  nine  years; 
and  he  died. 

The  longevity  of  the  ancients  is  abundantly 
proved  by  profane  history.  (See  Burnet's  Theory, 
b.  ii.,  chap,  iv.:  Stackhouse  on  Gen.:  Historia  Sinica 
Martinii :  Du  Halde's  China,  vol.  i.) 

Gen.  vi.  4. — There  were  giants  in  the  earth 
in  those  days ;  and  also  after  that,  when  the 
Sons  of  God  came  in  unto  the  daughters  of 
men,  and  they  bare  children  to  them,  the  same 


GENESIS.  63 

became  mighty  men,  which  were  of  old,  men 
of  renown. 

"We  need  scarcely  say,  that  the  text  itself  gives 
no  countenance  to  the  monstrous  notion  of  an  illicit 
intercourse  between  angelic  beings  and  the  children 
of  earth ;  this  is  a  fragment  of  mythology  which 
has  been  unnaturally  grafted  upon  it,  and  the  ridi- 
cule to  which  the  Bible  has  been  subject  in  conse- 
quence is,  therefore,  altogether  misplaced.  The 
phrase,  Soiis  of  God^  designates  God's  pious  and 
worshiping  people: — Job,  i.  6.  ii,  1:  Hos.  i.  10: 
Jno.  i.  12.  The  word  rendered  giants  signifies  als® 
fallen  men;  hence,  some  understand  the  text  to 
teach,  that  unequal  marriages  between  the  pious  and 
the  wicked  resulted  in  great  apostacy,  and  in  a  race 
of  cruel,  warrino;  men. 

It  is  true,  however,  that  giants  did  exist  in  the 
earlier  ages  of  the  world.  Eees'  Cyclo.,  art.  Giant : 
Huctui's  Inquiries,  b.  ii. :  Aug.  De  Civ.  Dei.  vi.  15 : 
Pliny,  vi.  1. 

Gen.  vi.  6. — And  it  repented  the  Lord  that 
he  had  made  man  on  the  earth,  and  it  grieved 
him  at  his  heart. 

In  several  passages  of  Scripture  God  is  said,  as 
above,  to  repent ;  yet,  it  is  said  also  most  positively, 
that  he  cannot  repent.  It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that 
the  word  repent  can  not  be  used  in  these  two  classes 
of  texts  in  the  same  sense.     The  above  text  is  a 


64       THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

figurative  expression  adapted  to  tlie  simplest  intel- 
lects, and  none  but  tlie  most  obstinate  could  stumble 
over  it. 

Gen.  viii.  1-24.— The  Deluge. 

This  is  one  of  the  most  severely  contested  facts  of 
revelation.  It  must  certainly  be  regarded  as  an  ex- 
traordinary event,  unequalled  in  the  annals  of  man, 
and  not  to  be  judged  by  the  ordinary  laws  and  ope- 
rations of  nature.  It  was  brought  about  and  accom- 
plished by  omnipotence.  This,  at  once,  vacates  all 
science,  and  removes  all  objections  from  that  source. 
It  is  above  and  beyond  the  domain  of  scietice,  and 
is  not  to  be  criticised  by  scientific  principles.  On 
this  ground  we  are  not  bound  to  notice  any  objec- 
tions to  it  as  unphilosophical.  Yet  we  know  of  no 
valid  objection  from  any  department  of  science  to 
the  fact  of  a  universal  deluge.  True,  great  names 
in  geology  have  doubted  or  denied  it,  but  names 
equally  great  have  given  credence  to  it. 

It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that  geology  is 
not  a  system  of  demonstrated  truths,  but  of  deduc- 
tions, inferences  and  assumptions,  Based  upon  or 
drawn  from  a  limited  view  of  certain  physical  phe- 
nomena on  the  earth's  crust.  The  science  is  conse- 
quently imperfect,  and  liable  to  constant  changes. 

Geologists,  too,  have  great  fondness  for  large 
numbers  and  imposing  speculations,  often  putting 
thousands  of  years  where  hundreds  would  answer 
the   purpose.     In  the  fascinations  of   their  study, 


GENESIS.  i6o 

and  their  intense  solicitude  for  their  theories,  the  pet 
chiklren  of  their  brains,  they  are  apt  to  forget  the 
integrity  of  the  Word. 

But  whatever  may  be  the  theories  and  inferences 
of  geologists,  no  single  ascertained  fact  of  geology  can 
he  adduced  as  direct  testimony  against  the  fact  of  a 
universal  deluge.  This  is  our  deliberate  conviction 
after  a  careful  examination  of  opposing  arguments 
and  theories. 

The  language  clearly  indicates  that  the  deluge 
was  accompanied  with  extraordinary  physical  phe- 
nomena. "The  windows  of  heaven  were  opened" — 
stupendous  cataracts  poured  from  above ;  "  the 
fountains  of  the  great  deep  were  broken  up,"  &c., 
signifying,  doubtless,  the  upheaval  of  earth's  crust, 
the  displacement  of  ocean  beds,  the  sinking  of 
mountains,  and  the  burial  at  once  and  forever  of  all 
relics  of  that  guilty  race,  whose  dark  and  damning 
sins  called  down  such  terrible  retribution. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  ark  could  not  contain  a 
pair  of  all  the  species  of  animals.  But  who  dare 
limit  the  resources  of  almighty  power  and  infinite 
wisdom?  What,  would  you  make  a  miracle  of  it? 
says  the  objector.  Certainly,  it  was  in  character 
and  design  unquestionably  miraculous,  and  we 
would  as  soon  apply  the  tests  of  science  to  the  turn- 
ing of  water  into  wine,  (Jno.  ii.)  or  the  raising  of 
Lazarus  from  the  dead.     (Jno.  xi.  43.) 

Yet  the  objection  is  of  little  force.     There  are  in 
all  two  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  species  of  living 
animals,  but  of   these   are  excluded,  of  course,  all 
6^ 


66       THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

that  live  in  water,  aquatic  and  amphibious.  Per- 
haps we  might  also  exclude  all  whose  spawn  or 
larvae  could  be  preserved,  and  many  oviparous  ani- 
mals might  be  kept  in  the  egg  instead  of  living 
specimens.  Be  this  as  it  may,  we  thus  dispose  of 
all  the  radiates,  mollusks,  articulates,  and  verte- 
brates, the  whole  class  of  fishes,  and  most,  if  not  all, 
of  reptiles.  This  leaves  the  mammals,  numbering 
something  over  twelve  hundred,  perhaps  as  high  as 
fifteen  hundred,  and  birds,  embracing  five  thousand 
species ;  from  the  former,  we,  of  course,  exclude 
all  whales  or  cetacians,  which  greatly  reduces  the 
whole  number. 

The  ark  is  estimated  at  over  thirty  thousand  tons 
burden,  or  more  than  equal  to  eighteen  first  class 
packet  ships.  So  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubts 
as  to  its  capacity  to  carry  everything  necessary  to 
its  purpose. 

It  has  been  objected  that  these  animals,  from 
climates  the  extremes  of  heat  and  cold,  could  not 
live  in  one  locality;  this  will  be  sufficiently  an- 
swered by  a  visit  to  any  of  our  extensive  mena- 
geries. 

The  fact  of  a  universal  deluge  has  been  disputed 
upon  the  ground,  that  some  ancient  records  run 
back  anterior  to  the  date  of  the  deluge,  as  ascer- 
tained from  Scripture.  These  records  are  from  three 
sources — China,  India,  and  Egypt.  But  we  have 
already  shown,  in  our  remarks  on  Gen.  iii.  20,  how 
little  confidence  can  be  placed  in  these  records. 
The  nations  of  old  were  strongly  disposed  to  carry 


GENESIS.  67 

tlieir  traditions  back  to  a  fabulous  antiquity,  and  to 
claim  tlieir  origin  from  the  gods.  Bunsen  admits  this 
in  the  case  of  the  Egyptians, — see  Egypt's  place  in 
Uni.  Hist.  See  also  Chronologie  der  Egypter,  Hand- 
buch  der  Chronologie,  Cosmos,  &c. 

That  Egyptian  monuments  were  altered  in  the 
times  of  the  Pharaohs,  may  be  satisfactorily  seen  by 
reference  to  Eevue  des  Deux  Mondes,  1847,  p.  1028 
— 1849,  p.  93,  and  Poole's  Horse  Egyptiacse.  See 
also  for  the  antiquity  of  the  Chinese,  Gutziaff's 
China  Opened. 

"  Traditions  of  a  general  deluge  have  been  found 
among  all  nations  of  the  ancient  world,  and  disse- 
minated among  modern  nations  in  the  most  distant 
and  opposite  parts  of  the  earth,  and  in  all  their  dif- 
ferent degrees  of  civilization.  Wherever  there  is 
any  attempt  to  account  for  the  existence  of  the  pre- 
sent population,  it  begins  with  the  pr'eservation  of 
one  pair  of  human  beings,  or  a  single  family,  by 
some  floating  vessel.  This  is  usually  connected 
with  a  previously  existing  race — with  the  anger  of 
the  supreme  being  against  their  sins — and  with  the 
desolation  of  the  earth,  and  the  race  of  men,  by  a 
general  inundation. 

"  There  are  no  conflicting  traditions.  The  har- 
mony among  all  nations  is  such  as  could  have 
arisen  only  from  the  fact  itself  AVe  find  Chaldeans, 
Phoenicians,  Assyrians,  Persians,  Chinese,  Hindoos, 
Mexicans,  Peruvians,  North  Americans,  Islanders 
of  Oceanica,  all  preserving  in  their  mythologies  or 
their  histories,  the  principal  facts  recorded  by  Moses. 


68       THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

They  all  embody  one  story" — Bedford's  Holy  Scrip, 
verified.  See  also  Cyclo.  Bib.  Lit.,  vol.  I.,  p.  542  : 
Faber's  Orig.  Pagan  Idol,  i.,  p.  206,  218;  Asiat.  Ke- 
searches ;  Mitford's  Greece,  Humboldt's  Kesearches. 

Gen.  xi.  1-9. — The  confusion  of  tongues. 

We  have  here  an  account  of  the  building  of  the 
tower  of  Babel,  the  confusion  of  tongues,  and  the 
dispersion  of  mankind  over  the  earth.  The  in- 
spired historian  had  already  stated,  in  the  preceding 
chapter,  that  men  were  divided  into  distinct  nations 
and  dispersed  through  the  world ;  in  this  place  he 
details  more  particularly  the  cause  of  that  dispersion. 
Here  we  have  the  origin  of  the  languages,  as  well 
as  the  races  of  men.  The  chief  ground  of  distinc- 
tion between  the  different  races  is  found  in  the  con- 
stitutional peculiarities  which  adapt  them  to  their 
different  localities. 

It  is  said  in  the  text,  that  "the  Lord  scattered 
the  people  abroad  upon  the  face  of  all  the  earth ;" 
this  being  true,  he  must,  at  the  same  time,  have 
given  them  a  physical  adaptation  to  the  several  por- 
tions of  the  earth  whither  they  were  sent.  The 
different  races  originated  then  from  one  primitive 
stock  by  the  exercise  of  divine  power.  At  a  sub- 
sequent period  (Gen.  xv.  11-12),  there  was  another 
divine  interposition  producing  from  one  father  two 
races,  the  Jews  and  Arabs,  widely  differing  from 
each  other.  Thus  it  is,  that  revelation  alone  solves 
the  problem  of  the  races,  and  establishes  the  fact  of 
their  common  origin. 


GENESIS.  69 

Independent  of  tlie  history  of  the  origin  of  man- 
kind, the  Bible  further  proves  the  unitj  of  the  races, 
by  the  relation  which  all  men  sustain  to  their  first 
head,  as  indicated  in  the  consequences  of  his  trans- 
gression, &c. — by  the  relation  which  all  men  sustain 
to  Christ,  as  their  common  Eedeemer,  and  to  the 
scheme  of  salvation — by  positive  and  direct  decla- 
rations, as.  Gen.  iii.  20 :  Acts  xvii.  26,  &c. 

Gen.  xii.  11-13. — And  it  came  to  pass,  when 
he  was  come  near  to  enter  into  Egypt,  that  he 
said  unto  Sarai  his  wife,  Behold  now,  I  know 
thou  art  a  fair  woman  to  look  upon  :  therefore 
it  shall  come  to  pass,  when  the  Egyptians 
shall  see  thee,  that  they  shall  say.  This  is  his 
wife:  and  they  will  kill  me,  but  they  will 
save  thee  alive.  Say,  I  pray  thee,  thou 
art  my  sister :  that  it  may  be  well  with  me 
for  thy  sake ;  and  my  soul  shall  live  because 
of  thee. 

There  can  be  no  question  but  that  Abram  did 
wrong  here,  but  neither  the  Divine  being,  nor  the 
writer  of  this  book,  is  responsible  for  his  fault. 
There  is  not  the  slightest  approval  of  his  act.  It  is 
given  simply  as  an  historical  fact — and  that  these 
failings  of  God's  servants  are  so  impartially  related 
in  the  Bible,  without  any  attempt  at  palliation  or 


70       THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

concealment,  is  strong  proof  of  its  historical  truth 
fulness. 

Gen.  xiii.  7. — And   there  was  a  strife  be 
tween  the  herdsmen  of  Abram's  cattle  and  the 
herdsmen  of  Lot's  cattle  :  and  the  Canaanite 
and  the  Perizzite  dwelled  then  in  the  land. 

It  has  been  argued  that  this  passage  must  have 
been  written  after  the  Canaanites  were  driven  out 
of  the  land.  But  it  is  said  "the  land  was  not  able  to 
bear"  Abram  and  Lot,  for  the  reason  that  "the  Ca- 
naanite and  Perizzite  dwelled  in  the  land ;"  there 
was  not  room  for  them  and  these  heathen. 

Again,  the  Jews  expected  the  heathen  nations  to 
be  driven  out  of  Canaan,  according  to  God's  promise. 

Gen.  xiv.  14. — And  when  Abram  heard 
that  his  brother  was  taken  captive  he  armed 
his  trained  servants,  born  in  his  own  house, 
three  hundred  and  eighteen,  and  pursued  them 
unto  Dan. 

It  has  been  assumed  that  there  was  no  city  called 
Dan,  until  the  time  of  the  Judges,  (Jud.  xviii.  27, 
29),  consequently  Grenesis  was  not  written  till  after 
the  Judges.     We  reply — 

1.  The  text  does  not  say  Dan  was  a  city ;  it  may 
have  been  a  stream  (one  of  the  sources  of  Jordan), 
or  a  district  of  country. 


GENESIS.  71 

2.  There  were  two  Dans;  Dan-Laish,  above  named, 
and  Dan-Jaan  (2  Sam.  xxiv.  6),  the  affixes  serving 
to  distinsjuish  them. 

Gen.  xix.  8. — Behold  now,  I  have  two 
daughters  which  have  not  known  man;  let 
nie,  I  pray  you,  bring  them  out  unto  you,  and 
do  ye  to  them  as  is  good  in  your  eyes  :  only 
unto  these  men  do  nothing ;  for  therefore  came 
they  under  the  shadow  of  my  roof. 

Lot's  offer  of  his  daughters  to  the  vicious  mob 
which  beset  his  house,  though  it  shows  how  invio- 
lable he  regarded  the  laws  of  hospitality,  can  not 
be  justified  on  any  sound  or  safe  principles.  Nor  is 
there  any  attempt  to  justify  it  in  the  Scriptures.  It 
is  stated  as  a  part  of  history. 

Gen.  xix.  26. — But  his  wife  looked  back 
from  behind  him,  and  she  became  a  pillar  of 
salt. 

This  has  been  a  matter  of  much  ridicule  with 
infidels.  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  however,  that 
Lieutenant  Lynch  saw  upon  the  shores  of  the  Dead 
Sea  "  a  pillar  of  salt  capped  with  carbonate  of 
lime,"  which  the  tradition  of  the  place  says  is  Lot's 
wife. 

Gen.  xxii.  1. — ^And  it  came  to  pass,  after 
these  things  God  did  tempt  Abraham. 


72       THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

This  is  said  to  contradict  James  i.  13,  "  Let  no 
man  say  when  he  is  tempted  I  am  tempted  of  God,  for 
God  can  not  be  tempted  with  evil,  neither  tempteth 
he  any  man."  But  the  word  tempt  is  in  these  pas- 
sages used  in  different  senses.  God  does  tempt  or 
try  providentially  his  servants,  but  he  never  solicits  a 
man  to  sin. 

Gen.  xxii.  1-18. — The  offering  of  Isaac. 

This  occurrence  has  been  denounced  as  unworthy 
of  God,  who  is  said  to  order  it.  But  the  circum- 
stance is  fully  justified  by  its  design  and  results. 
Not  only  was  Abraham  proved,  but  his  faith  was 
greatly  strengthened.  He  complied  with  the  divine 
requisition,  believing  that  God  would  deliver  his 
son  (Heb.  xi.  19),  and  when  that  deliverance  was 
wrought  he  could  not  but  trust  him  more  implicitly 
than  ever.     See  page  88. 

Gen.  xxiii.  2. — And  Sarah  died  in  Kirjath 
Arba;   the  same  is  Hebron. 

As  the  Hebrews  called  Kirjath- Arba  Hebron, 
after  they  had  taken  it,  the  text  is  supposed  to  have 
been  written  after  that  event.  There  is  no  difficulty 
in  admitting  the  latter  clause  of  the  text  to  be  the 
work  of  some  transcriber ;  but  the  original  name 
of  the  city  was  Aebron,  and  this  name  was  restored 
after  its  capture  by  the  Israelites,  because  of  its 
patriarchal  associations. 


GENESIS.  73 

•Gen.  xxxiv.  7. — And  the  sons  of  Jacob 
came  out  of  the  field  when  they  heard  it ; 
and  the  men  were  grieved,  and  they  were 
very  wroth,  because  he  had  wrought  folly  in 
Israel. 

It  is  contended  that  this  conld  not  have  been 
written  until  after  Palestine  was  called  Israel.  The 
phrase  in  Israel  does  not  mean  the  land  but  the 
family  of  Israel. 

Gen.  xxxvi.  2-3. — Esau's  wives. 

There  is  an  apparent  discrepancy  between  this 
account  of  Esau's  wives,  and  that  in  chap.  xxvi. 
84 ;  it  must  be  borne  in  mind,  however,  that  in  the 
east  different  names  were  often  applied  to  one  per- 
son. Esau  had  three  wives,  and  each  of  them  is 
spoken  of  under  two  names,  making  six  names  for 
them  all. 

Gen.  xxxvi.  31. — And  these  are  the  kings 
that  reigned  in  the  land  of  Edom,  before  there 
reigned  any  kings  over  the  children  of  Israel. 

"  The  writer  of  this,"  says  an  infidel  work  now 
before  me,  "  must  have  lived  at  a  period  when  kings 
were  common  in  Israel."  But  this  does  not  follow 
necessarily ;  kings  had  been  promised  to  Israel  (Gen. 
XXXV.  11),  and  were  expected ;  moreover,  the  text 
7 


74       THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

states  simply  there  were  kings  in  Edom  wlien  there 
were  none  in  Israel. 

Gen.  xlviii.  7. — And  Israel  beheld  Joseph's 
sons,  and  said,  who  are  these  ?     *     *     *     * 

10. — (Now  the  eyes  of  Israel  were  dim  for 
age,  so  that  he  could  not  see.) 

This  passage  has  been  unjustly  treated  as  a  con- 
tradiction. Israel's  eyes  were  so  dim,  that  though 
he  could  discern  Joseph's  sons  at  some  distance,  he 
could  not  see  them  distinctly  or  recognize  them, 
hence,  his  inquiry  and  the  necessity  of  bringing 
them  near.     How  blind,  or  dishonest,  is  infidelity ! 


EXODUS. 

Ex.  ii.  16. — And  when  they  came  to  Reuel 
their  father,  he  said,  How  is  it  that  ye  are 
come  so  soon  to-day  ? 

In  V.  27,  it  is  said,  this  Eeuel  became  Moses' 
fatlier-in-laAY,  but  in  chap,  iii,  1,  bis  fatber-in-law 
is  called  Jetbro,  and  in  Num.  x.  29,  Eaguel  is  said  to 
be  bis  fatber-in-law.  These  are  not  contradictions ; 
the  several  names  belonging  to  one  and  tbe  same 
person ;  a  custom  very  prevalent  in  tbe  east. 

Ex.  vi.  2. — And  God  spake  unto  Moses,  and 
said  unto  him,  I  am  the  Lord, 

3. — And  I  appeared  unto  Abraham,  unto 
Isaac,  and  unto  Jacob,  by  the  name  of  God 
Almighty ;  but  by  my  name  Jehovah  was  I 
not  known  to  them. 

Infidels  have  asserted  that  this  verse  contradicts 
Gen.  xxii.  14,  "And  Abraham  called  tbe  name  of 
that  place  Jebovah-jireh." 

1.  Abraham  appropriated  this  name  to  a  place, 
not  to  God. 

(75) 


76       THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

2.  The  name  God  {Elohim)  is  used  in  the  earlier 
books  of  the  Bible,  to  designate  the  deity  in  a 
general  sense,  as  the  Creator, — a  God  of  power  ;  the 
name  Lord  {Jehovah)^  designates  him  in  a  special 
sense,  as  manifesting  himself  in  providence  and 
grace, — a  God  of  goodness  and  mercy.  The  text 
reads — "And  God  {Elohim)  spake  unto  Moses,  and 
said  unto  him,  I  am  the  Lord  (Jehovah)^  and  I  ap- 
peared unto  Abraham,  unto  Isaac,  and  unto  Jacob, 
by  the  name  of  God  Almighty  {El  Shaddai)]  but 
by  my  name  Jehovah  was  I  not  known  to  them." 
Not  that  the  bare  word  was  unknown  to  them,  but 
its  import — its  full  meaning,  as  designating  a  God  of 
providence,  making  himself  known  in  the  deliver- 
ance and  support  of  his  people  (as  he  was  just 
about  to  do  for  the  Israelites),  this  was  not  known 
to  them. 

Ex.  vii.  3. — And  I  will  harden  Pharaoh's 
heart,  and  multiply  my  signs  and  my  wonders 
in  the  land  of  Egypt. 

In  objecting  to  this  passage,  infidel  writers  have 
usually  placed  it  in  a  false  light,  viz.^  that  God 
hardened  Pharaoh's  heart  and  then  punished  him 
for  his  hardness  of  heart.  We  shall  submit  several 
thoughts  on  the  whole  subject  involved,  which  may, 
perhaps,  enable  us  to  form  a  more  correct  estimate 
of  the  text  and  its  connections. 

1.  Pharaoh  is  here  dealt  with  not  in  his  personal, 
but  in  his  official  character;  as  the  representative, 


EXODUS.  77 

and  an  integral  part  of  a  guilty  nation,  who,  for 
centuries,  had  oppressed  God's  people  and  crushed 
them  in  merciless  bondao^e.  Their  crimes  had  lono^ 
and  loudly  called  for  vengeance,  while  the  prolonged 
period  of  mercy  aggravated  their  guilt,  and  the 
hour  of  retribution  had  now  come.  If  at  this  point, 
Pharaoh  yields  and  allows  the  Israelites  to  go  in 
peace,  he  and  his  guilty  people  will  escape  their 
merited  punishment,  and  the  end  of  justice  be  de- 
feated. This  shows  at  once  that  the  hardenins:  of 
his  heart  was  a  judicial  act, — a  part  of  the  terrible 
judgment  to  which  he  had  made  himself  obnoxious. 

2.  In  hardening  his  heart  God  did  not  create  any 
evil  there,  the  evil  already  existed ;  it  was  simply 
bringing  to  sight  what  had  a  being  in  concealment ; 
or  rather,  it  was  making  apparent  in  a  certain  way 
what  had  been  previously  developing  itself  in  an- 
other. This,  in  the  ways  of  providence,  is  often  a 
powerful  means  of  bringing  the  wicked  to  a  sense 
of  their  condition  and  effecting  their  conversion. 

3.  In  hardening  his  heart  God '  did  not  aggravate 
the  evil  existing  there.  Nothing  was  added  to  the 
degree  of  wickedness  already  possessed.  God  may 
render  "a  man  incapable  of  receiving  grace,  in 
order  to  mitigate  his  guilt ;  for,  if  the  man  in  ques- 
tion had  the  eyes  of  his  spirit  open,  were  he  aware 
what  was  offered  to  him  and  yet  resisted,  he  were  a 
far  greater  subject  of  punishment  than  without  this 
capability  he  could  be."*  Furthermore,  when  a 
man's  sin  reaches  that  degree   of  intensity  which 

*  Olsliausen. 


78       THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

constitutes  the  sin  against  the  Hol}^  Ghost,  the  spirit 
may  be  withdrawn,  and  the  man's  heart  thus  be 
hardened  without  there  being  any  aggravation  of 
his  wickedness  on  the  part  of  God. 

These  considerations,  we  think,  obviate  the  objec- 
tion to  this  passage  usually  made  by  infidels. 

Ex.  vii.  11. — Then  Pharaoh  also  called  the 
wise  men  and  the  sorcerers :  now  the  magi- 
cians of  Egypt,  they  also  did  in  like  manner 
with  their  enchantments. 

Unbelievers  have  depended  upon  this  passage  for 
proof  that  the  magicians  performed  miracles  as  well 
as  Moses.  But  in  every  instance  in  which  they 
attempt  to  compete  with  Moses,  they  fall  infinitely 
below  him,  and  at  last  give  up  the  attempt,  confess- 
ing that  "the  finger  of  God"  was  with  him.  When, 
therefore,  infidels  summon  these  magicians  against 
the  miracles  of  Moses,  they  are  bound  to  stand  by 
the  testimony  of  their  witnesses,  which  is  conclusive 
against  themselves. 

As  this  is  the  first  recorded  instance  of  miracles 
wrought  by  the  agency  of  man,  we  shall  offer  a  few 
remarks  upon  that  topic.  A  miracle  is  a  suspension 
of,  or  deviation  from  the  laws  of  nature,  wrought 
mediately,  or  immediately  by  Almighty  God  in 
proof  of  some  particular  doctrine,  or  to  attest  the 
authority  of  some  particular  person.  The  objec- 
tions to  miracles,  now  usually  advanced,  are  from 


EXODUS.  79 

Voltaire  and  Hume.  The  former  says :  "  It  is  im- 
possible that  God,  a  being  infinitely  wise,  should 
make  laws  in  order  to  violate  them — that  the  world 
must  have  been  so  constructed  in  the  beginning  as 
to  preclude  the  necessity  of  subsequent  changes." 

This  is  raising  a  false  issue,  God  does  not  make 
laws  to  violate  them,  and  miracles  neither  suppose 
nor  imply  any  such  thing. 

Again,  if  it  is  impossible  for  God  to  suspend  or 
deviate  from  the  course  of  nature,  then  his  power  is 
limited  ;  he  is  circumscribed  by  material  existences ; 
he  is  not  infinite ;  in  other  words,  he  is  not  God  and 
there  is  no  God ;  if  it  is  possible  for  him  to  do  these, 
then  the  objection  has  no  force. 

The  position  of  Mr.  Hume  was  more  bold  than 
this  but  not  more  reasonable.  He  says :  "  No  tes- 
timony for  any  kind  of  miracle  can  ever  possibly 
amount  to  a  probability,  much  less  to  a  proof." 

That  is  to  say — God  can  never  make  a  revelation 
of  his  will  to  man.  For  such  a  revelation  must  of 
necessity  be  accompanied  by  some  evidence  of  its 
superhuman  origin,  which  w^ould  be  a  miracle.  The 
course  of  reasoning,  by  which  Mr.  Hume  was  led  to 
the  above  conclusion  is,  in  substance,  as  follows  : — • 
The  credit  we  give  to  human  testimony  is  based 
upon  our  experience,  which  also  proves  that  men 
sometimes  testify  falsely,  but  our  experience  in  the 
laws  of  nature  proves  they  are  constant  and  uni- 
form. A  miracle,  therefore,  contradicts  all  expe- 
rience. False  testimony  is  not  contrary  to  experience, 
therefore,  it  is  easier  to  believe  the  testimony  is  false 


80       THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

than  to  believe  the  miracle  it  is  brought  to  prove  is 
true. 

This  argument  contains  several  very  unsound 
statements. 

1.  It  is  not  true,  that  our  belief  in  human  testi- 
mony depends  solely  upon  our  experience.  Gene- 
rally, those  having  the  least  experience  are  most 
ready  to  receive  human  testimony,  as  in  the  instance 
of  children. 

2.  It  is  not  true  that  miracles  are  contrary  to 
experience.  To  whose  experience  does  he  mean? 
His  own  ?  He  is  not  to  decide  for  all.  To  the  uni- 
versal experience  of  mankind  ?  This  is  his  mean- 
ing, but  how  are  we  to  get  at  this  experience  ?  By 
appealing  to  history?  History  says  miracles  are 
true. 

3.  The  argument  of  Mr.  Hume  begs  the  question. 
If  he  says  miracles  are  contrary  to  our  experience, 
we  admit  it,  but  that  proves  nothing.  That  such 
things  have  never  occurred  to  us  does  not  prove 
they  never  occurred  to  others.  If  he  says  they  are 
contrary  to  the  experience  of  those  among  whom 
they  are  said  to  have  transpired,  we  reply,  this  is 
the  very  point  to  be  proved,  and  we  want  proof,  not 
assertion. 

4.  But  we  would  turn  Mr.  Hume's  argument 
against  himself.  It  is  contrary  to  experience  that 
any  book,  bearing  such  a  mass  of  external  and  inter- 
nal testimony  of  truthfulness,  as  does  the  Bible, 
should  prove  false,  therefore  it  must  be  true. 


EXODUS.  81 

* 

Ex.  xi.  2. — Speak  now  in  tlie  ears  of  the 
people,  and  let  every  man  borrow  of  his  neigh- 
bor, and  every  woman  of  her  neighbor,  jewels 
of  silver,  and  jewels  of  gold. 

1.  Upon  the  face  of  this  infidels  have  charged  the 
Israelites  with  being  a  nation  of  thieves.  It  is  a 
sufficient  answer  to  this,  to  say  that,  if  God  com- 
manded them  to  do  this  thing,  that  gave  them  full 
right  and  title  to  the  articles  received,  for,  "the 
earth  is  the  Lord's  and  the  fullness  thereof" 

2.  But  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  Israelites 
designed  to  deceive  the  Egyptians;  everything  in 
tlie  narrative  goes  to  show  that  the  people  expected 
to  return,  and  were  perfectly  honest  in  thus  dealing 
with  their  nei2:hbors. 

3.  The  word  horroived  is  rendered  ash  in  Psa.  ii.  8. 
In  the  three  passages  relative  to  this  transaction 
(chap.  iii.  22,  xi.  2,  xii.  85),  the  LXX.  has  shall  ask, 
and  it  was  so  in  the  English  Bible  till  the  edition 
of  Becke,  in  15-19 ;  the  Geneva,  Barker's  and  some 
others,  having  ashe.  According  to  this,  the  injunc- 
tion seems  to  have  been  that  the  Israelites  should 
ask  a  restoration  of  that  property  of  which  they 
had  been  wrongfully  despoiled.  This  seems  to  be 
intimated  also  in  chap.  iii.  22,  where  the  word  ren- 
dered sjjoil  signifies  regain  or  recover,  and  is  so  used 
in  Sam.  xxx.  22. 

4.  Dr.  Clarke  has  ably  argued  that  there  could  be 
no  borrowing  in  the  case,  because,  if  accounts  were 


82       THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

• 

fairly  balanced,  Egypt  would  be  in  considerable 
arrears  to  Israel,  having  owed  its  policy,  its  opu- 
lence, and  even  its  political  existence  to  the  Israelites, 
and  for  all  this  the  latter  received  no  compensation 
whatever,  but  were  cruelly  abused  and  obliged  to 
witness,  as  the  sum  of  their  calamities,  the  murder 
of  their  male  children. 

Ex.  xii.  40. — Now  the  sojourning  of  the 
children  of  Israel,  who  dwelt  in  Egypt,  was  for 
a  hundred  and  thirty  years. 

The  difference  between  this  text  and  Gen.  xv.  13, 
is  accounted  for  by  considering  the  different  data 
from  which  they  are  computed. 

Ex.  xiv.  22. — And  the  children  of  Israel 
went  into  the  midst  of  the  sea  upon  the  dry 
ground:  and  the  waters  were  a  wall  unto 
them  on  their  right  hand,  and  on  their  left. 

As  the  passage  of  the  Eed  Sea,  described  in  this 
verse  and  the  context,  was  a  miraculous  event 
wrought  by  Almighty  God,  no  valid  objections  can 
be  brought  against  it  upon  scientific  grounds,  and 
all  attempts  to  explain  it  upon  natural  principles 
are  uncalled  for  and  without  proof.  The  sacred 
narrative  of  the  event  is  corroborated  by  ancient 
historv  and  tradition. 


EXODUS.  83 

Ex.  XX.  5. — Thou  shalt  not  bow  down  thy- 
self to  them,  nor  serve  them;  for  I  the  Lord 
thy  God  am  a  jealous  God,  visiting  the  iniqui- 
ties of  the  fathers  upon  the  children  unto  the 
third  and  fourth  generation  of  them  that  hate 
me. 

Infidels  can  not  relieve  themselves  of  the  fact 
herein  expressed,  though  they  object  to  the  text; 
with  or  without  the  Bible,  it  still  remains  a  fact. 
In  the  diseased  constitutions,  dishonored  names  and 
broken  fortunes  of  many  around  us,  we  see  daily 
the  evidences  of  its  truthfulness. 

This,  entailment  of  the  physical  consequences  of 
sin  seems  to  be  all  that  is  comprehended  in  the  above 
threatening.  See  Eze.  xviii.,  especially  the  19  v. — 
"Yet  ye  say,  Why  doth  not  the  son  bear  the  iniquity 
of  the  father  ?  When  the  son  hath  done  that  wliich 
is  lawful  and  right,  and  hath  kept  all  my  statutes, 
and  hath  done  them,  he  shall  surely  live." 

Ex.  xxii.  18. — Thou  shalt  not  suffer  a  witch 
to  live. 

The  objection  to  this  law,  as  unnecessarily  severe, 
loses  sight  of  the  fact,  that  besides  plundering  and 
robbing  others,  they  were,  under  the  Jewish  theo- 
cracy, guilty  of  both  blasphemy  and  treason. 

Ex.  xxiv.  4. — And  Moses  wrote  all  the 
words  of  the  Lord. 


84       THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

There  is  no  contradiction  in  this  to  verse  12, 
where  the  Lord  is  said  to  have  written  them ;  it  is 
evident  from  the  context  they  were  written  by  both. 

Ex.  xxxiii.  23. — And  I  will  take  away  my 
hand,  and  thou  shalt  see  my  back  parts :  but 
my  face  shall  not  be  seen. 

This  means  that  there  should  be  a  diminished 
view  of  God's  glory  allowed  to  Moses. 

Ex.  xxxii.  3. — And  all  the  people  brake  off 
the  golden  ear-ruigs  which  were  in  their  ears, 
and  brought  them  unto  Aaron. 

4. — And  he  received  them  at  their  hand, 
and  fashioned  it  with  a  graving  tool,  after  he 
had  made  it  a  molten  calf. 

Infidels  have  disputed  the  truth  of  this,  on  the 
ground  that  a  calf  of  gold  could  not  be  got  up  in  a 
single  day.     To  this  we  reply — 

1.  There  is  nothing  in  the  narrative  which  inti- 
mates that  it  was  done  in  one  day  or  two ;  so  these 
objectors  (Collins,  Tindall,  &c.)  were  fighting  a  man 
of  straw  of  their  own  make. 

2.  The  text  does  not  say  the  image  was  of  solid 
gold  ;  it  was,  doubtless,  only  covered  with  that  metal. 

The  part  which  Aaron  took  in  this  transaction 
was  forced  upon  him  (v.  i.  22,  23),  and  that  he  met 
not  the  punishment  due  his  sin,  was  owing  to  his  re- 
pentance, which  is  evident  in  liis  subsequent  conduct. 


LEVITICUS. 

A  GREAT  deal  of  infidel  ridicule  has  been  expended 
upon  the  sacrifices  and  ceremonies  of  the  Jewish 
church,  described  in  this  and  other  sacred  books. 
They  have  been  denounced  as  silly,  senseless,  and 
unworthy  the  origin  ascribed  to  them.  All  such 
objections,  however,  are  founded  in  ignorance  of  the 
circumstances  under  which  these  rites  originated  and 
the  true  philosophy  of  the  mind. 

In  their  deliverance  from  Egyptian  bondage,  the 
Israelites  had  seen  abundant  manifestations  of  God's 
goodness  and  mercy,  and  to  some  extent  his  justice. 
But  God  is  a  holy  being,  and  it  was  essential  to 
them  to  know  this,  yet  living,  as  they  had  been,  in 
the  midst  of  idolatry,  they  could  have  no  conception 
of  this  attribute.  And  how  could  the  idea  of  God's 
holiness  be  impressed  upon  the  mind  of  that  nation? 
As  holiness  is  an  abstract  idea,  and  can  reach  the 
mind  through  the  senses  only,  it  is  very  evident, 
that  it  must  be  conveyed  to  them  through  the  me- 
dium of  sensible  things.  Hence  it  was,  that  every 
rite  connected  with  the  Jewish  order  of  worship,  as 
divinely  instituted,  conveyed  to  them  the  idea  of  pu- 
rity and  holiness,  and  transferred  that  idea  to  God. 
Take,  for  illustration,  the  offering  of  sacrifices. 
8  (85) 


86       THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

"  In  the  outset,  the  animals  common  to  Palestine 
were  divided,  by  command  of  Jehovah,  into  clean 
and  unclean ;  in  this  way  a  distinction  was  made, 
and  the  one  class,  in  comparison  with  the  other,  was 
deemed  to  be  of  a  purer  and  better  kind.  From 
the  class  thus  distinguished,  as  more  pure  than  the 
other,  one  was  selected  to  offer  as  a  sacrifice.  It  was 
not  only  to  be  chosen  from  the  clean  beasts,  but,  as 
an  individual,  it  was  to  be  without  spot  or  blemish. 
Thus  it  was,  in  their  eyes,  purer  than  the  other  class, 
and  purer  than  other  individuals  of  its  own  class. 
This  sacrifice  the  people  were  not  deemed  worthy, 
in  their  own  persons,  to  offer  to  Jehovah ;  but  it 
was  to  be  offered  by  a  class  of  men  who  were  dis- 
tinguished from  their  brethren,  purified,  and  set 
apart  for  the  service  of  the  priest's  office.  Thus 
the  idea  of  purity  originated  from  two  sources;  the 
purified  priest  and  the  pure  animal  purified^  were 
united  in  the  offering  of  the  sacrifice.  Bat  before 
the  sacrifice  could  be  offered,  it  was  washed  with 
clean  water — and  the  priest  had,  in  some  cases,  to 
wash  himself,  and  officiate  without  his  sandals. 
Thus,  when  one  process  of  comparison  after  another 
had  attached  the  idea  of  superlative  purity  to  the 
sacrifice — in  offering  it  to  Jehovah,  in  order  that  the 
contrast  between  the  purity  of  God,  and  the  highest 
degrees  of  earthly  purity  might  be  seen,  neither 
priest,  nor  people,  nor  sacrifice,  was  deemed  suffi- 
ciently pure  to  come  into  his  presence;  but  thq 
offering  was  made  in  the  court  without  the  holy  of 
holies.     In  this  manner,  by  a  process  of  comparison, 


LEVITICUS.  87 

the  cliaracter  of  God,  in  point  of  purity,  was  placed 
indefinitely  above  themselves  and  their  sacrifices. 

"And  not  only  in  the  sacrifices,  but  throughout 
the  whole  Levitical  economy,  the  idea  of  purity  per- 
vaded all  its  ceremonies  and  observances.  The 
camp  was  purified — the  people  were  purified — every- 
thing was  purified  and  re-purified  ;  and  each  process 
of  the  ordinances  was  designed  to  reflect  purity  upon 
the  others,  until,  finally,  that  idea  of  purity  formed 
in  the  mind  and  rendered  intense  by  the  conver- 
gence of  so  many  rays,  was,  by  comparison,  referred 
to  the  idea  of  God — arid  the  idea  of  God  in  their 
minds,  being  that  of  an  infinitely  powerful  and  good 
spirit ;  hence,  purity,  as  a  characteristic  or  attribute 
of  such  a  nature,  would  necessarily  assume  a  moral 
aspect,  because  it  appertained  to  a  moral  being — it 
would  become  moral  purity  or  holiness.  Thus  they 
learned,  in  the  sentiment  of  Scripture,  that  God  was 
of  too  pure  eyes  to  look  upon  iniquity."  (Philos. 
of  the  Plan  of  Salva.,  pp.  75-95.) 

In  the  same  way,  by  the  severity  of  the  penalties 
affixed  to  the  transgression  of  divine  law,  was  the  idea 
of  God's  justice  impressed  upon  and  kept  before 
their  minds.  Thus  in  their  consummate  adaptation 
to  the  constitution  of  the  mind  as  then  developed, 
the  Jewish  ritual  and  laws  bear  unmistakeable  evi- 
dence of  their  divine  origin. 

Lev.  xxvii.  29. — None  devoted,  which  shall 
be  devoted  of  men,  shall  be  redeemed;  but 
fchall  surely  be  put  to  death. 


88       THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY, 

Voltaire  relies  upon  this  passage  to  show  that 
God,  according  to  the  Jews,  demanded  human  sacri- 
fices— (Philo.  Diet.  art.  Jephtha.)  This,  however,  is 
a  gross  perversion  of  language.  Sacrifices  are  not 
named  in  the  text;  the  phrase  put  to  death  is  not 
equivalent  to  offer  as  sacrifice,  and  can  not  be  so 
understood.  It  teaches  that  those  devoted  to  de- 
struction by  the  penal  Uierem,  or  solemn  anathema, 
denounced  by  public  or  divine  authority,  could  not 
be  redeemed.^ 

That  human  sacrifices  were  abhorrent  to  God  is 
sufficiently  clear  from  the  case  of  Abraham.  When 
his  faith  had  been  tried,  his  hand  was  stayed — he 
was  not  allowed  to  offer  his  son,  but  another  victim 
was  provided.  And  why  ?  Because  such  an  offer- 
ing was  displeasing  to  Jehovah. 

If  further  proof  on  this  point  were  necessary,  we 
might  quote  Deut.  xii.  29-32,  where  the  Israelites 
are  forbidden  to  do  unto  the  Lord,  as  the  heathens 
do  to  their  gods,  and  the  offering  of  human  sacri- 
fices are  specified  as  particularly  abhorrent  to  the 
Divine  Being. 

*■  Jahn. 


NUMBERS. 

Num.  xii.  3.— Now  the  man  Moses  was  very 
meek,  above  all  the  men  which  were  upon  the 
f\ice  of  the  earth. 

This  has  been  condemned  as  a  degree  of  self- 
praise  inconsistent  with  the  measure  of  meekness 
claimed.  The  word  rendered  meek  primarily  means 
oppressed^  and  "  has  the  accessory  idea  of  humility, 
meekness ;  i.  e.,  the  humble,  the  meek,  who  prefer  to 
suffer  wrong  than  to  do  wrong.""^  This,  under  the 
circumstances,  he  was  justijSable  in  saying  of  himself. 

Num.  xiv.  30. — Doubtless  ye  shall  not  come 
into  the  land  concerning  which  I  sware  to 
make  you  dwell  therein,  save  Caleb  the  son 
of  Jephunneh,  and  Joshua,  the  son  of  Nun. 

The  promise  of  this  land  to  the  generation  here 
addressed  was  conditional,  they,  failing  on  their  part 
of  the  conditions,  forfeited  the  promise.  Caleb  and 
Joshua  are  particularly  excepted,  the  priests  were 
also  excepted,  but  are  not  here  named,  because  pro- 
bably not  present  on  the  occasion. 

*  Gtsenius. 

8'^  (89) 


90       THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

Num.  xiv.   34. and  ye  shall  know 

my  breach  of  promise. 

The  marginal  reading  is — the  altering  of  my  pur- 
pose. The  promises  of  God  are  conditional,  though 
the  conditions  are  not  always  expressed.  The  fail- 
ure to  comply  with  the  conditions  of  a  promise,  will 
result  in  a  corresponding  failure  to  receive  the  pro- 
mise. "  And  at  what  instant  I  shall  speak  concern- 
ing a  nation,  and  concerning  a  kingdom,  to  build 
and  to  plant  it;  if  it  do  evil  in  my  sight,  that  it 
obey  not  my  voice,  then  will  1  repent  of  the  good, 
wherewith 'I  said  I  would  benefit  them"  (Jer.  xviii. 
9-10) ;  that  is, — I  ivill  change  my  purpose — /  will  not 
grant  the  promise.  This  is  all  that  is  meant  by  breach 
of  promise  above.   See  Eze.  xviii.  21,  and  xxxiii.  11. 

Num.  xxii.  22. — And  God's  anger  was  kin- 
dled because  he  went. 

This  is  said  of  Balaam,  yet  in  v.  20,  it  is  said 
God  told  him  to  go.  There  is  no  inconsistency 
between  these  two  passages.  Balaam  was  originally 
commanded  in  most  peremptory  terms  not  to  go ; 
instead  of  obeying  instantly  and  faithfully  he  yielded 
to  the  temptation  offered  (v.  17),  and  persuaded  the 
messengers  of  Balak  to  remain  all  night  (v.  19), 
doubtless,  to  give  the  proposition  further  considera- 
tion. In  this  he  sinned,  and  God  gave  him  up  to 
his   own  wicked   heart,   and   that  his  punishment 


NUMBERS.  91 

might  be  wrought  upon  him,  said,  in  answer  to  his 
solicitations,  go. 

Num.  XXV.  9. — And  those  that  died  in  the 
plague  were  twenty  and  four  thousand. 

There  is  no  discrepancy  between  this  passage  and 
1  Cor.  X.  8.  as  Paul  speaks  of  those  only  who  "  fell 
in  one  day,"  viz.^  twenty- three  thousand,  while  the 
text  includes  all  that  died  on  that  occasion,  even 
those  who  were  destroyed  by  the  judges. 

"  These  were  butchered,"  said  Voltaire,  "  to  ex- 
piate the  fault  of  one  man  who  was  surprised  with 
a  Moabitish  woman." 

This  is  a  falsehood.  The  twenty-four  thousand 
were  not  slain  for  the  sin  of  one,  but  perished  for 
their  own  sins,  before  he  was  slain. 

Num.  xxxi.  15. — And  Moses  said  unto  them, 
have  ye  saved  all  the  women  alive  ? 

16. — Behold,  these  caused  the  children  of 
Israel,  through  the  counsel  of  Balaam,  to  com- 
mit trespass  against  the  Lord  in  the  matter 
of  Peor,  and  there  was  a  plague  among  the 
congregation  of  the  Lord. 

17. — Now  therefore  kill  every  male  among 
the  little  ones,  and  kill  every  woman  that 
hath  known  man  by  lying  with  him.  But  all 
the   women-children,   that   hath   not    known 


92       THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

man  by  lying  with  him,  keep   alive  for  your- 
selves. 

A  few  words  will  suffice  to  redeem  tliis  text  from 
the  indecent  and  blasphemous  assertions  of  infidels. 
From  the  narrative  given  in  chap,  xxv.,  some  idea 
may  be  formed  of  the  extremely  depraved  and  vi- 
cious character  of  the  Midianites,  and  of  their  efforts 
to  involve  Israel  in  the  same  obscene  and  impious 
system  of  idokitry  which  they  had  adopted.  Their 
arts  but  too  well  succeeded,  and  twenty-four  thou- 
sand Israelites  suffered  death  for  their  sins  in  this 
matter.  In  the  present  chapter  the  Lord  commands 
Moses  to  avenge  the  children  of  Israel  on  these 
heathen.  The  Israelites  are,  therefore,  to  be  regarded 
on  this  occasion  as  "  the  sword  of  the  Lord,"  and 
not  so  much  the  sword  of  war  as  the  sword  of  jus- 
tice. The  former  makes  a  difference  between  youth 
and  manhood,  between  male  and  female;  but  the 
latter  makes  none,  except  between  guilt  and  inno- 
cence^ or  the  various  degrees  of  guilt.  As  to  the 
females  specified  in  the  text  to  be  destroyed,  they 
were  the  greatest  criminals,  and  had  been  more  im- 
mediately the  instruments  of  polluting  Israel  with 
superstition,  obscenity  and  idolatry.  Their  lives 
were,  therefore,  forfeited  by  their  personal  trans- 
gressions. True,  the  infants  had  not  sinned,  but  a 
moment's  reflection  will  show  that  it  was  a  merciful 
provision  for  both  parties;  for,  had  they  been  pre- 
served, it  would  have  been  doubtless  in  a  state  of 
vassalage.     Be  that  as  it  may,  while  we  know  that 


NUMBERS.  93 

tlie  author  and  supporter  of  life  has  a  right  to  dispose 
of  it  as  he  sees  fit;  and  while  we  know,  moreover, 
that  as  the  "  Judge  of  the  earth,"  he  will  do  right, 
we  need  not  perplex  ourselves  to  find  the  reasons  of 
his  conduct  where  he  has  seen  fit  to  withhold  them. 

It  is  not  true  that  the  young  women  were  pre- 
served for  concubinage.  The  laws  of  the  Jews  pro- 
tected the  honor  of  the  captives  (Deut.  xxi.  10-14), 
and  treated  them  with  benevolence. 

See  further  note  on  Deut.  xx.  17,  p.  97. 


DEUTERONOMY. 

Deut.  i.  1. — These  be  the  words  which 
Moses  spake  unto  all  Israel  on  this  side  Jordan 
in  the  wilderness,  in  the  plain  over  against  the 
Red  Sea,  between  Paran,  and  Tophel,  and 
Laban,  and  Hazeroth,  and  Dizanab. 

The  word  rendered  this  side^  reads  in  the  original 
beyond  Jordan,  and  it  has  been  argued,  with  seeming 
plausibility,  that  this  book  must  have  been  written 
after  the  Israelites  had  crossed  into  Canaan,  and 
consequently,  not  by  Moses.  There  is  reason  to 
believe,  however,  that  the  country  on  the  east  of 
Jordan  was  called  Beyoyid  Jordan,  and  was  so  de- 
signated without  reference  to  the  j)osition  of  the 
speaker.  There  is  an  illustration  of  this  in  Caesar's 
Commentaries.  That  part  of  Gaul  lying  between 
Rome  and  the  Alps  was  called  Hither  Gaul ;  and 
that  between  the  Alps  and  the  Atlantic,  was  Farther 
Gaul ;  and  so  Caesar  denominates  them,  no  matter 
where  he  is ;  if  in  Farther  Gaul,  he  calls  it  Farther 
Gaul,  though  to  him  it  is  actually  Hither  Gaul.  This 
is  very  clear  from  the  fact  that  ''this  side  Jordan," 
Deut.  i.  5,  includes  the  land  of  Moab.  The  same 
occurs  1  Kings  iv.  24. 
(94) 


DEUTERONOMY.  95 

Deut.  i.  10. — The  Lord  your  God  hath  mul- 
tiplied you,  and,  behold,  ye  are  this  day  as  the 
stars  of  heaven  for  multitude. 

As  Moses  must  have  meant  the  stars  visible  to 
the  eye,  his  comparison  was  very  moderate,  for  the 
Israehtes  then  exceeded  this  number  many  times. 
Infidels  have  forced  upon  the  text  a  construction 
evidently  foreign  to  it,  and  then  disputed  its  truth. 

Deut.  ii.  12. — The  Horims  also  dwelt  in 
Seir  beforetime;  but  the  children  of  Esau 
succeeded  them,  when  they  had  destroyed 
them  from  before  them,  and  dwelt  in  their 
stead;  as  Israel  did  unto  the  land  of  his  pos- 
session, which  the  Lord  gave  unto  them. 

As  Israel  had  not  yet  entered  into  the  possession  of 
Canaan,  it  is  evident  that  the  last  clause  of  the  text 
is  an  interpolation ;  a  note  of  some  scribe,  which 
has  crept  into  the  text.  These  interpolations  are 
very  few  and  easily  detected,  being  in  the  form 
of  explanation  or  illustration,  and  bearing  evident 
marks  of  a  later  origin  than  the  pure  text.  As  it  is, 
they  constitute  no  valid  objection  to  the  genuineness 
or  authenticity  of  the  books  in  which  they  are  found. 

Deut.  xiii.  9. — But  thou  shalt  surely  kill 
him ;  thy  hand  shall  be  first  upon  him  to  put 


96       THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

him  to  death,  and  afterwards  the  hands  of  all 
the  people. 

This  was  the  penalty  of  idolatry,  and  infidels 
have  pronounced  it  unnecessarily  severe,  cruel,  &g. 
Severe  penalties,  however,  were  a  part  of  the  means 
used  by  Almighty  God,  to  impress  upon  the  mind 
of  that  people  a  proper  notion  of  his  holiness  and 
justice.  Moreover,  for  a  Jew  to  become  an  idolater 
was  to  commit  treason,  a  crime  almost,  if  not  uni- 
versally, punished  with  death. 

Deut.  xvii.  17. — Neither  shall  he  multiply 
wives  to  himself,  that  his  heart  turn  not  away. 

It  has  been  objected  that  had  this,  and  other  pas- 
sages in  the  Pentateuch,  recognizing  the  existence  of 
a  king  over  Israel,  existed  in  time  of  Samuel  he 
would  not  have  resisted,  as  he  did  (1  Sam.  viii.  6), 
the  appointment  of  a  king.  To  this  we  reply  : 
1.  There  is  no  force  in  the  conclusion,  as  it  assumes 
the  point  in  debate — it  must  be  proved  that  Samuel 
would  not  have  objected  to  a  king  in  the  face  of 
this  and  like  laws.  There  is  strong  reason  to  believe 
he  would:  see  1  Sam.  viii.  11.  2.  It  is  evident 
Samuel's  chief  ground  of  displeasure  was  the  rejec- 
tion of  himself. 

The  text  has  been  the  ground  of  another  objec- 
tion, viz  : — that  had  this  law  existed  in  the  times  of 
David  and  Solomon,  they  would  not  have  taken  to 
themselves  such  vast  numbers  of  wives  as  they  did. 


DEUTERONOMY.  97 

This  is  a  formidable  objection  !  A  powerful  argu- 
ment ! !  Quite  unanswerable ! ! !  Pity  it  is,  tliat  it 
has  not  been  proved  that  neither  David  nor  Solomon 
would,  nor  did,  violate  any  known  law  of  God. 
This  is  essential  to  the  objection,  for  without  it  it  is 
perfectly  silly. 

Deut.  XX.  17.— But  thou  shalt  utterly  de- 
stroy them ;  namely,  the  Hittites,  and  the 
Amorites,  the  Canaanites,  and  the  Perizzites, 
the  Hivites,  and  the  Jebusites,  as  the  Lord 
thy  God  hath  commanded  thee. 

Perhaps  no  objection  to  the  sacred  writings  has 
been  more  popular  among  infidels  than  that  based 
upon  the  command  of  God,  to  the  Israelites,  to 
destroy  these  heathen  nations.  It  has  been  pro- 
nounced incomparably  cruel  and  sufficient  of  itself 
to  invalidate  the  whole  Bible  from  Genesis  to  Eevela- 
tion.  Morgan,  Tindal,  Bolingbroke  and  Paine,  with 
a  host  of  petty  apostles,  have  rung  their  changes 
upon  it,  as  if  perfectly  unanswerable.  No  notice 
has  been  taken  of  the  wickedness  of  these  nations, 
their  idolatries,  barbarous  and  bloody  rites,  cruel- 
ties in  family  government,  and  other  shocking  forms 
of  vice,  but  they  have  been  treated  in  the  argument 
as  a  helpless,  harmless  people,  cruelly  cut  off  in  their 
innocency. 

We  reply  to  this  objection,  in  all  its  phases,  as 
follows : 
9 


98       THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

1.  These  nations  had  so  far  sunken  in  depravity 
as  to  forfeit  their  probation.  Crimes  of  the  most 
shocking  and  disgusting  nature  filled  up  the  mea- 
sure of  their  wickedness.  See  Deut.  ix.  1-6,  and 
Lev.  xviii.  Perhaps  no  nations,  since  known  to  us, 
have  exhibited  such  deep  moral  corruption.  And 
this  description  of  them,  by  the  Scriptures,  is  fully 
sustained  by  all  the  light  that  profane  history  throws 
upon  them.  There  was  then  no  cruelty  in  their 
destruction,  but  a  just  visitation  of  divine  indig- 
nation. 

2.  In  selecting  the  Israelites  as  the  instruments 
of  tliis  deserved  punishment,  God,  doubtless,  de- 
signed to  impress  their  minds  with  an  indelible 
sense  of  his  abhorrence  of  sin.  This  was  a  leading- 
feature  in  his  providences  and  laws  in  reference  to 
that  people.  In  the  terrible  calamities  which  over- 
whelmed the  Egyptians,  they  saw  the  awful  hand 
of  the  sin-avenging  God ;  in  the  smoke  which  rolled 
up  from  every  blood- dripping  altar,  they  read  that 
life  is  the  sacrifice  for  sin;  in  the  severe  penalties 
guarding  the  divine  law,  they  saw  a  formidable 
battery  of  wrath  challenging  their  obedience,  and 
threatening  destruction  to  him  who  dared  impiously 
to  fling  down  the  gauntlet  of  defiance  to  Almighty 
God. 

3.  But  infidels,  much  as  they  object  to  the  facts 
here  recorded,  must  meet  the  consequences.  It  is  a 
fact  that  these  nations  were  destroyed.  Upon  the 
most  prevalent  theories  of  infidelity,  God  is  the 
cviuse  of  all  that  happens,  hence,  the  God  of  infidels 


DEUTERONOMY.  99 

is  as  justly  impeacliable  as  the  God  of  the  Bible  in 
this  matter. 

4.  Again — God  does  now  destroy  thousands  upon 
thousands  by  pestilence,  earthquakes,  and  other 
instrumentalities.  To  say  that  these  are  natural 
causes  does  not  relieve  the  case,  for  they  are  causes 
set  in  operation  and  directed  by  him,  who  "■  doeth 
all  things  according  to  his  will,"  and  doeth  all 
things  right. 

Deut.  X.  6. — And  the  children  of  Israel  took 
their  journey  from  Beerotli  of  the  children  of 
Jaakin  to  Mosera:  there  Aaron  died,  and 
there  he  was  buried. 

In  Numbers,  it  is  said  Aaron  died  at  Mount  Hor ; 
Mosera  was  the  name  of  the  district  in  which  Hor 
is  situated.  Moreover,  the  word  there  (scham)  may 
be  here  used  to  designate  the  time  of  Aaron's  death, 
and  be  translated  then.,  or  at  that  time^  as  it  is  in  seve- 
ral other  passages. 

Deut.  xxi.  18-21. — The  treatment  of  the 
rebellious  son. 

Parental  power  in  ancient  times  extended  even 
over  the  lives  of  the  children.  Moses  here  circum- 
scribes this  power,  and  orders  that  no  son  be  put  to 
death  until  proved  before  the  magistrates  of  the  city 
guilty  of  the  crimes  above  specified.  This  law  then, 
so  far  from  being  cruel,  as  infidels  have  asserted,  was 


100    THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

designed  to  prevent  a  cruel  and  arbitrary  exercise 
of  power  already  possessed. 

Deut.  xxvii.  4. — Therefore  it  shall  be  when 
ye  be  gone  over  Jordan^  that  ye  shall  set  up 
these  stones,  which  I  command  you  this  day, 
in  Mount  Ebal,  and  thou  shalt  plaster  them 
with  plaster.         ♦         ♦         ♦         *         * 

8. — And  thou  shalt  write  upon  the  stones  all 
the  words  of  this  law,  very  plainly. 

An  infidel  work,  now  before  me,  denies  that  Moses 
wrote  the  Pentateuch,  because  "  there  were  only  two 
modes  of  writing  known"  at  that  time ;  one  by  cut- 
ting words  on  stone,  the  other  by  tracing  them  on 
plaster ;  neither  of  which  he  could  have  used  for 
the  whole  five  books. 

1.  We  may  set  against  this  the  assertion  of  other 
infidels,  that  manuscripts  among  Egyptians,  Chinese, 
and  Hindoos,  antedate  this  period  thousands  of  years, 
and  go  back  even  centuries  before  the  time  of  Adam. 
This  is  certainly  placing  the  origin  of  writing  at  a 
very  early  date. 

2.  The  truth  is  in  neither  of  these  extremes.  The 
precise  date  this  art  originated  is  now  unknown.  It 
is  clear  the  Egyptians  practised  it  before  the  time 
of  Moses,  and  it  was  known  to  the  Greeks  at  least 
as  early  as  the  Mosaic  age.  Cadmus,  according  to 
traditional  history,  carried  the  alphabet  into  Greece 
from  Phoenicia,  in  1821,  B.  C. :  the  Hebrews  were 


DEUTERONOMY.  101 

once  neiglibors  of  the  Phoenicians,  and  may  have 
acquired  the  knowledge  of  letters  from  them.  These 
facts  constitute  a  sufficient  answer  to  the  objection. 

Deut.  xxxiv. — Death  of  Moses. 

This  account  of  the  death  affixed  to  the  Penta- 
teuch has  been  made  a  fruitful  source  of  cavil  by 
infidel  writers. 

There  is  reason  to  believe  that  this  passage  ori- 
ginally formed  an  introduction  to  the  book  of 
Joshua,  and  became  separated  from  it  by  the  divi- 
sion of  the  books  into  chapters  and  verses,  or  at 
some  earlier  period. 

9* 


JOSHUA. 

Jos.  V.  5. — Now  all  the  people  that  came 
out  were  circumcised ;  but  all  the  people  that 
were  born  in  the  wilderness  by  the  way  as 
they  came  forth  out  of  Egypt,  them  they  had 
not  circumcised. 

It  lias  been  said  that  the  omission  of  circumci- 
sion in  the  wilderness  is  not  consistent  with  the 
authority  of  the  law,  and,  therefore,  the  law  could 
not  have  been  in  existence.  This  omission  did  not 
extend  through  the  whole  journey,  but  only  from 
the  time  when  the  exclusion  of  the  existing  genera- 
tion from  Canaan  was  declared,  and  it  is  easily  ac- 
counted for  by  the  wickedness  of  the  Jews. 

Jos.  X.  13. — And  the  sun  stood  still,  and 
the  moon  stayed,  until  the  people  had  avenged 
themselves  upon  their  enemies. 

This  language,  though  not  philosophically  correct, 
is  in  strict  accordance  with  popular  usage.  The  sun 
always  stands  still;  yet  the  man  who  would  say 
Philadelphia  set  last  night,  at  5.22,  P.  M.,  and  rose 
this  morning,  at  6.11,  A.  M.  however  correct  he 
(102) 


JOSHUA.  103 

might  be,  would  be  regarded  as  a  pedantic  fool. 
The  sacred  narrative  describes  the  phenomenon  just 
as  it  appeared ;  the  sun  and  moon  appeared  to  stand 
still — the  day  appeared  to  be  thus  prolonged,  and 
this  manner  of  expression  satisfies  all  the  demands 
of  truth.  The  event  being  miraculous,  can  not  be 
objected  to  on  scientific  grounds. 

Jos.  X.  23. — And  they  did  so,  and  brought 
forth  those  five  kings  unto  him  out  of  the  cave, 
the  king  of  Jerusalem,  the  king  of  Hebron,  the 
king  of  Jarmuth,  the  king  of  Lacliish,  and  the 
king  of  Eglon. 

There  is  no  discrepancy  between  the  account  of 
the  death  of  this  king  of  Hebron,  given  in  v.  26, 
and  that  in  v.  37 :  two  different  individuals  are 
spoken  of;  yet  some  infidels  have  not  had  sense 
enough  to  see  this,  or  honesty  enough  to  acknow- 
ledge it. 

Jos.  xi.   19. — There   was   not   a   city  that 

made  peace  with  the  children  of  Israel,  save 

the   Hivites   the  inhabitants    of  Gibeon :    all 

other  they  took  in  battle. 

The  last  clause  of  this  text  is  said  to  be  contra- 
dicted by  chap.  xv.  63 :  but  Jerusalem  was  in  the 
possession  of  the  Israelites,  though  the  Jebusites, 
there  spoken  of,  remained  fortified  in  a  small  por- 
tion of  the  city — the  city  was  taken,  but  the  fort  or 
castle  remained  in  their  possession. 


JtlDGES. 

Jud.  i.  19. — And  the  Lord  was  with  Judah; 
and  he  drave  out  the  inhabitants  of  the  moun- 
tain ;  but  could  not  drive  out  the  inhabitants 
of  the  valleyj  because  they  had  chariots  of 
iron. 

The  pronoun  he  of  the  text  stands  for  Judah. 
He  drove  out  the  inhabitants  of  the  mountain  be- 
cause the  Lord  was  with  him,  but  it  does  not  follow 
that  the  Lord  was  with  him  when  he  attempted  to 
drive  out  the  inhabitants  of  the  valleys.  Here,  left 
to  himself,  he  fails. 

Jud.  ix.  13. — And  the  vine  said  unto  them, 
should  I  leave  my  wine,  which  cheereth  God 
and  man. 

The  word  God  should  be  gods^  i.  e.,  the  hero-gods 
of  the  heathen  ;  Jotham  is  speaking  of  an  idolatrous 
city,  and  the  language  is  figurative. 

Jud.  xi.  30,  31. — Jephthah's  vow. 

This  has  been  made  the  subject  of  much  infidel 
animadversion.     But  why  should  God,  or  his  word, 
(104) 


JUDGES.  105 

be  held  responsible  for  the  rash  vow  of  an  indivi- 
dual ?  Human  sacrifices  were  positively  forbidden. 
(See  note  on  Lev.  xxvii.  29,  page  88;)  consequently, 
if  he  ojffered  his  daughter  as  a  burnt-offering,  it  was 
in  violation  of  God's  law,  and  without  his  approval 
— nay,  with  his  displeasure. 

But  it  is  not  true  that  he  so  offered  his  daughter. 
The  word  it^  in  the  vow  (offer  it  up),  does  not  belong 
to  the  original;  that  reads — "shall  surely  be  the 
Lord's,  and  I  will  offer  a  burnt-offering."  This  view 
is  corroborated  by  the  last  verse  of  the  chapter, 
which,  literally  translated, *reads — "the  daughters 
of  Israel  went  up  from  year  to  year  to  talk  w^ith  the 
daughter  of  Jephthah,"  &c.  He  consecrated  her  to 
God  in  perpetual  virginity  (v.  S9),  the  greatest  sacri- 
fice a  Jew  could  make  with  an  only  child. 


1    SAMUEL. 

1  Sam.  vi.  19. — And  he  smote  of  the  men 
of  Beth-shemesh,  because  they  had  looked 
into  the  ark  of  the  Lord,  even  he  smote  of  the 
people  fifty  thousand  three  score  and  ten  men. 

The  immense  number  here  said  to  be  slain  for 
this  offence,  has  been  made  matter  of  severe  com- 
ment among  infidel  writers.  But  the  justice  of  the 
punishment  is  not  to  be  determined  by  the  number 
punished ;  where  it  is  just  to  punish  one  for  an 
offence,  it  is  just  to  punish  any  number  who,  may  be 
guilty  of  it.  God  is  the  absolute  proprietor  of  life, 
and  has  the  right  to  fix  its  limits  as  he  wills ;  and 
he,  alone,  can  determine  what  penalties  are  best 
fitted  to  impress  with  reverence  and  secure  the  obe- 
dience of  his  creatures. 

As  the  original  reads — "  seventy  men,  fifty  thou- 
sand men,"  which  does  not  make  sense,  many 
learned  critics  think  a  letter  used  as  a  particle  has 
been  lost  from  the  text,  and  that  it  should  be  trans- 
lated— "  he  smote  of  the  people  seventy  men  out  of 
fifty  thousand." 

1  Sam.  xiii.  14. — But   now    thy    kingdom 

(106) 


1  SAMUEL.  107 

shall  not  continue  :  the  Lord  hath  sought  him 
a  man  after  his  own  heart. 

The  prophet,  in  this  language,  makes  no  reference 
to  David's  moral  character,  but  means  that  he  is  the 
instrument,  or  person  chosen  for  the  accomplishment 
of  certain  purposes.     See  Acts  xiii.  22. 

1  Sam.  xxviii.  7-25. — Saul  and  the  witch 
of  Endor. 

There  is  in  the  appearance  of  Samuel's  spirit,  on 
this  occasion,  no  evidence  of  chicanery  or  satanic 
influence.  The  woman  was  as  much  surprised  and 
alarmed  as  Saul.  The  prophetic  denunciations  of 
Samuel,  which  afterwards  came  to  pass,  were  such 
as  neither  human  wisdom  nor  diabolical  power  could 
foresee,  and  prove  beyond  doubt,  that  it  was  "  the 
Lord's  doings,"  and  it  was  marvelous  in  our  eyes. 


*  Jahn. 


2    SAMUEL. 
2  Sam.  i.  1-10.— The  death  of  Saul. 

The  account  of  Saul's  death,  here  given,  contra- 
dicts that  in  the  preceding  chapter,  but  then  it  is  the 
story  of  a  runaway  Amalekite,  told  for  the  purpose 
of  gaining  David's  favor,  consequently,  no  depen- 
dence is  to  be  placed  upon  it,  and  the  Bible  is  not 
responsible  for  its  untruth,  because  it  exposes  its 
falsity. 

2  Sara.  xii.  30. — And  he  took  their  king's 
crown  from  off  his  head  (the  weight  whereof 
was  a  talent  of  gold  with  the  precious  stones), 
and  it  was  set  on  David's  head. 

According  to  the  usual  interpretation  the  weight 
of  this  crown  would  be  nearly  one  hundred  and 
fourteen  pounds,  which,  it  is  obvious,  could  not  be 
borne  by  any  human  head.  "We  are  far  from  being 
certain  of  the  absolute  meaning  of  the  Hebrew 
words,  translated  a  talent  of  gold;  and  while  the 
term  is  involved  in  so  much  uncertainty,  no  objec- 
tion can  be  urged  against  the  narrative  on  the  ground 
of  its  supposed  incredibility. 

2  Sam.  xii.  31. — And  he  brought  forth  the 
(108) 


2   SAMUEL.  109 

people  that  were  therein,  and  put  them  under 
saws  and  under  harrows  of  iron,  and  under 
axes  of  iron,  and  made  them  pass  through  the 
brick-kiln. 

David  has  been  not  nnfrequently  reproached  for 
the  cruelty  he  inflicted  upon  the  Amorites  on  this 
occasion,  which,  it  is  said,  was  incompatible  to  the 
character  elsewhere  given  of  him — "a  man  after 
God's  own  heart," — an  expression  never  properly 
understood  by  the  modern  assailants  of  this  man. 
In  the  present  instance,  however,  the  cruelty  of 
David  is  only  in  our  translation,  or  rather  in  the 
sense  ascribed  to  under  and  through  in  the  text.  An 
able  critic  has  translated  the  passage  thus : — "  He 
brought  forth  the  inhabitants,  and  put  them  to  the 
saw,  and  to  iron  mines  and  iron  axes,  and  trans- 
ported them  to  the  brick-kiln."  This  seems  to 
represent  fully  the  sense  of  the  original.  But  to 
this  it  has  been  objected,  that  in  the  parallel  passage 
1  Chron.  xx.  3,  it  is  expressly  said  that  "  he  cut  them 
with  saws,"  &c. ;  in  reply  we  would  say  the  word 
them^  in  this  last  text,  does  not  belong  to  it,  but  was 
inserted  by  the  translators,  and  is  placed  in  italics. 
There  is  nothing,  therefore,  in  this  passage  which 
conflicts  with  the  view  we  have  given  of  the  text. 

2  Sam.  xxiv.  1. — And   again   the  anger  of 

the   Lord  was  kindled   against  Israel,  and  he 
10 


110    THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

moved  David  against  them  to  say,  go,  number 
Israel  and  Judah. 

This  passage  presents  an  apparent  contradiction 
to  1  Chron.  xxi.  1,  in  which  Satan  is  said  to  provoke 
David  to  number  Israel.  The  question  is,  who  did 
move  or  provoke  David  to  this  act  ? 

Without  speculating  on  the  peculiar  feature  in 
this  act  of  David,  which  constitutes  its  guilt,  it  was 
evidently  a  crime  of  no  small  magnitude.  The  re- 
monstrance of  Joab  is  proof  of  this.  The  character 
of  this  man,  as  developed  in  the  sacred  history, 
warrants  the  belief  that  under  the  bidding  of  the 
king,  he  would  have  stopped  at  no  ordinary  crime, 
yet' he  here  remonstrates  strongly  against  the  num- 
bering the  people.  '  The  act,  therefore,  must  have 
involved  something  very  criminal. 

Again,  the  punishment  inflicted  upon  the  people 
compels  us  to  take  this  view  of  the  subject.  God 
would  not  have  laid  his  hand  so  heavily  upon  Israel 
save  to  punish  some  deep,  dark  transgression. 
Hence,  he  could  not  have  been  the  author  or  insti- 
gator of  the  act.  If  it  involved  moral  obliquity 
(as  unquestionably  it  did),  he  did  not  move  David 
to  do  it.  For  this  reason,  if  there  existed  no  other, 
we  should  be  compelled  to  regard  the  above  render- 
ing of  the  text  as  faulty. 

But  eminent  critics,  for  philological  reasons,  which 
we  can  not  give  here,  render  the  second  clause  of 
the  text — "/or  he  moved  David,"  &c. ;  the  pronoun 
he  being  used  impersonally,  and  not  in  the  place  of 


2    SAMUEL.  Ill 

the  noun  Lord.  The  noun  for  which  he  stands  is 
that  supplied  bj  the  writer  of  Chronicles,  namely, 
Satan.  This  understanding  of  the  text  is  strictly 
consistent  with  correct  exegetical  principles,  and 
throws  light  upon  the  cause  of  God's  anger. 

Other  biblical  scholars  propose  to  throw  the  clause 
into  the  passive  form,  thus — "  for  David  was  moved 
against  them  by  saying,"  &c.,  which  obviates  the 
difficulties  of  the  text.  Nor  do  we  know  any  valid 
objection  to  such  a  construction.  Therefore,  before 
it  can  be  said  that  the  above  passages  of  Scripture 
present  a  contradiction,  it  must  be  shown  that  nei- 
ther of  these  solutions  is  suited  to  the  demands  of 
the  case,  which,  we  premise,  will  be  a  most  difficult 
task,  seeing  they  both  have  the  authority  of  great 
names  in  biblical  literature. 


1    KINGS. 

1  Kings  ii.  6. — Do  therefore  according  to 
thy  wisdom,  and  let  not  his  hoar  head  go 
down  to  the  grave  in  peace. 

This  is  the  direction  which  David,  on  his  death- 
bed, gave  to  Solomon  respecting  the  punishment  of 
Joab,  who  had  been  guilty  of  a  brutal  murder,  and 
was  then  in  open  rebellion  against  the  kingdom. 
David  does  not  specify  the  manner  in  which  he 
should  be  punished,  but  leaves  this  to  the  wisdom 
of  Solomon,  saying  only  that  he  should  not  be  suf- 
fered to  go  to  his  grave  unpunished. 

1  Kings  ii.  8. — And  behold,  thou  hast  with 
thee  Shimei  the  son  of  Gera,  a  Benjamite  of 
Bahurim,  which  cursed  me  with,  a  grievous 
curse  in  the  day  when  I  went  to  Mahanaim : 
but  he  came  down  to  meet  me  at  Jordan,  and 
I  sware  to  him  by  the  Lord,  saying,  I  will  not 
put  thee  to  death  with  the  sword. 

9. — Now  therefore  hold  him  not  guiltless: 

for  thou  art  a  wise  man,  and  knowest  what 

(112) 


1   KINGS.  113 

thou  ouglitest  to  do  unto  him ;  but  his  hoar 
head  bring  thou  down  to  the  grave  with  blood. 

A  misunderstanding  of  this  passage  has  led  to 
the  opinion  that  David  commanded  Solomon  to  kill 
Shimei,  for  a  crime  that  he  had  once  sworn  not  to 
punish  by  death.  Thus  an  injury  has  been  done  this 
illustrious  character  by  not  duly  observing — what  is 
common  in  the  Hebrew  language — the  omission  of 
the  negative  in  a  second  part  of  the  sentence  (and 
considering  it  repeated),  which  is  expressed  in  the 
first  and  followed  by  the  connecting  particle.  In 
Psa.  Ixxv.  6,  we  read,  "Lift  not  up  your  horn  on 
high:  speak  7iot  with  a  stiff  neck."  The  second  not, 
in  this  text,  is  inserted  by  our  translators  because  it 
is  understood,  though  not  repeated  in  the  original. 
This  is  further  confirmed  by  Psa.  i.  5,  and  xxxviii  1. 
Apply  this  rule  to  the  passage  above,  and  it  will 
read — "  Behold  thou  hast,"  &c.,  and  "  but  bring  not 
his  hoar  head,"  &c. 

That  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  passage  is  very 
evident  from  the  context.  Solomon  did  not  then 
kill  Shimei ;  nor  did  he  hold  him  guiltless,  but  put 
him  on  parol,  and  slew  him  only  when  he  violated 
his  oath,  and  for  that  reason. 

1  Kings  xii.  26-29. — The  golden  calves  of 
Jeroboam. 

De  Wette,  Paulus,    Gesenius,    and   others,   have 
argued  that  if  the  Pentateuch  had  been  in  existence 
lO-'- 


114     THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

at  tliis  time,  Jeroboam  would  .never  have  ventured 
to  set  up  these  calves  for  worship,  or  the  people 
would  not  have  submitted  to  it,  if  he  had. 

"  Eeasoning  a  priori,  this  argument  has  consider- 
able plausibility,  provided  attention  be  not  paid  to 
the  nature  of  the  human  mind,  and  the  facts  of  his- 
tory. But  on  examining  it  more  closely,  it  loses  all 
force.  The  history  of  all  religions  shows,  that  in 
their  sacred  records,  no  commandment  or  prohibi- 
tion has  existed,  however  clear  and  distinct,  which 
a  wrong  bias  has  not  attempted,  by  all  the  arts 
which  a  mind  averse  from  truth  has  at  command,  to 
free  itself  from  without  impugning  the  authority  of 
the  original  record.  By  such  argumentation  as  the 
above,  how  plainly  it  could  be  shown  that  the 
Scriptures  were  not  in  existence  in  the  sixteenth 
century,  or,  in  short,  that  they  never  existed.  To 
take  only  one  out  of  numerous  examples.  What  a 
plausible  proof  of  the  non-existence  of  the  New 
Testament  might  be  drawn  from  the  present  practice 
of  divorces,  and  the  marriages  of  the  divorced  by 
the  ministers  of  the  church  ?  The  expressions  re- 
lating to  this  subject,  in  the  New  Testament,  are 
quite  as  decided  and  clear  as  the  expressioDs  in  the 
Pentateuch,  which  Jeroboam  explained  away."* 

1  Kings  xiii.  1-24. — The  man  of  God  at 
Bethel. 

This  man  of  God  was  sent  to  prophecy  against 
*  Hengstenberg. 


1   KINGS.  115 

the  altar  at  Bethel,  and  forbidden  to  stop  in  the 
place,  or  to  return  by  the  way  he  went,  yet  allowed 
himself  to  be  persuaded  to  tarry  by  a  pretended 
prophet,  and  consequently  lost  his  life.  "  If  this  man 
of  God,"  says  an  infidel  work  before  me,  "  could  be 
so  deceived,  how  can  we  distinguish  between  a  true 
prophet  and  a  false  one?" 

If  this  man  had  done  precisely  as  he  was  told  to 
do,  he  would  have  passed  out  in  safety.  The  com- 
mand of  God  to  him  was  clear  and  positive,  and  he 
had  no  right  to  set  up  against  this  the  pretensions 
of  any  one.  His  disobedience  was  the  cause  of  his 
death.  The  whole  incident  teaches  us  to  trust  in 
God's  word  above  everything  else. 

1   Kings  iv.  26. — And  Solomon  had  forty 

thousand  stalls  of  horses  for  his  chariots. 

In  2  Chron.  ix.  25,  we  read  of  but  four  thousand 
stalls  for  horses  and  chariots.  Whence  occasion  has 
been  taken  to  afiirm  a  contradiction  between  the 
passages.  A  careful  inspection  of  the  texts,  how- 
ever, will  show  that  the  author  of  Kings  speaks  of 
horses;  and  the  author  of  Chron.  of  the  stalls  or 
stables  in  which  they  were  kept. 

1  Kings  xxii.  1-27. — The  interview  between 

Micaiah  and  Ahab. 

The  deception  practised  upon  Ahab,  resulting  in 
his  death,  has  been  strongly  animadverted  upon  by 
infidels,  who  have  not  scrupled  to  charge  the  whole 


116    THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

upon  the  Lord.     The  facts  in  the  case  were  as  fol- 
lows : 

1.  Ahab  was  a  very  wicked  man,  and  had  made 
himself  obnoxious  to  God's  judgments,  and  worthy 
of  death. 

2.  He  had  determined  to  trust  in  his  own  pro- 
phets and  to  hear  nothing  from  the  prophet  of  the 
Lord,  whom  he  hated  (v.  8). 

3.  Micaiah  relates  a  vision  (v.  17),  representing 
Israel  as  scattered  like  sheep.  This  displeases  Ahab 
greatly,  for  he  does  not  want  the  truth. 

4.  Micaiah  relates  another  vision  (v.  19-22) ;  the 
dialogue  narrated  in  this  passage  never  actually 
occurred.  It  is  a  vision  simply,  and  is  so  given  by 
the  prophet. 

5.  The  meaning  of  v.  23,  is,  that  as  Ahab  was 
determined  not  to  have  the  truth,  but  wanted  to  be 
flattered  by  his  prophets,  God  "sent  him  strong  de- 
lusion that  he  might  believe  a  lie  and  be  damned." 


2    KINGS'. 

2  Kings  ii.  23,  24. — And  as  he  was  going 
up  by  the  way,  there  came  forth  Httle  children 
out  of  the  city,  and  mocked  him,  and  said 
unto  him.  Go  up,  thou  bald  head ;  go  up,  thou 
bald  head,  &;c. 

The  prophet  Elisha  has  been  reproached  in  no 
very  measured  terms  for  cursing  these  little  children. 
But  the  word  so  rendered  in  the  text,  signifies  young 
men  ;  these  not  only  insulted  Elisha,  but  also  derided 
his  prophetic  character.  He  cursed  them  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord^  that  is  under  divine  influence — by  divine 
authority — he  was  the  medium  through  whom  God 
expressed  his  displeasure. 

To  what  extent  the  bears  injured  them  is  not  said ; 
^Uhey  tare,''^  or  wounded  forty-two  of  them. 

2  Kings  V.  18. — In  this  thing  the  Lord  par- 
don thy  servant,  that  when  my  master  goeth 
into  the  house  of  Rimmon  to  worship  there, 
and  he  leaneth  on  my  hand,  and  I  bow  myself 

in  the  house  of  Rimmon :  when  I  bow  down 

(117) 


118     THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

myself  in  the  house  of  Rimmon,  the  Lord  par- 
don thy  servant  in  this  thing. 

"But  when  Naaman,  the  idolater,  asked  Elisha  to 
permit  him  to  follow  his  king  into  the  temple  of 
Rimmon,  and  to  worship  with  him  there,  did  not 
the  same  Elisha,  who  had  caused  the  children  to  be 
devoured  by  bears,  answer  him,  go  in  peace  ?" — 
Yoltaire. 

Naaman^  at  this  time,  was  not  an  idolater  (v.  17). 
He  does  not  ask  permission  to  worship  with  the 
king  (v.  18).  He  wishes  to  know  whether  he  may 
now  perform  certain  services  for  his  master  in  the 
temple. 

2  Kings  vi.  25. — And  there  was  a  great  fa- 
mine in  Samaria :  and  behold  they  besieged  it, 
until  an  ass's  head  was  sold  for  four-score  pieces 
of  silver,  and  the  fourth  part  of  a  cab  of  dove's 
dung  for  five  pieces  of  silver. 

The  ass  was  an  unclean  animal  whose  flesh  was 
prohibited  by  law,  this  text  is,  therefore,  difficult  to 
understand,  unless  we  suppose  the  straitness  of  the 
siege  compelled  them  to  eat  unclean  beasts. 

Some  think  the  words  rendered  ass's  head^  mean 
a  pile  of  bread,  or  other  food.  Dove's  dung  is  a 
kind  of  vetches  or  pulse,  called  by  the  Arabs  pigeon^ s 
dung. 

2  Kings  XV.  33.— Five  and  twenty  years  old 


2   KINGS.  119 

was  he  when  he  began  to  reign,  and  he  reigned 
sixteen  years  in  Jerusalem. 

It  was  sometimes  the  case  in  Israel  and  Judah, 
that  father  and  son  reigned  together,  in  which  cases 
the  length  of  the  reign  was  often  computed  from  dif- 
ferent dates,  as  the  reign  of  a  son  from  its  com- 
mencement, when  his  father  was  on  the  throne,  or 
from  the  death  of  the  father,  when  the  son  began  to 
reign  alone.  This  has  occasioned  some  apparent 
discrepancies.  In  the  above  text  Jotham  is  said  to 
have  reigned  sixteen  years ;  in  the  thirtieth  verse, 
the  "twentieth  year  of  his  reign"  is  mentioned, 
which  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  he  reigned  some 
years  with  his  father. 

2  Kings  XX.  11. — And  Isaiah  the  prophet 
cried  unto  the  Lord  :  and  he  brought  the  sha- 
dow ten  degrees  backward,  by  which  it  had 
gone  down  in  the  dial  of  Ahaz. 

It  is  not  necessary  for  the  understanding  of  this 
text,  to  suppose  that  either  the  sun  or  the  earth 
changed  its  course  ten  degrees  or  even  one  degree. 
The  intervention  of  a  light  mass  of  vapor  between 
the  dial  and  the  sun,  would  have  refracted  his  beams 
sufficient  to  bring  back  the  shadow  of  the  style  ten 
degrees,  measuring  perhaps  ten  minutes,  or  even  less. 

2   Kings   xxiv.   11.— And   Nebuchadnezzar, 


120    THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

king  of  Babylon,  came  against  the  city,  and 
his  servants  did  besiege  it. 

Jerusalem  was  taken  by  the  king  of  Babylon 
three  times.  2  Chron.  36.  First,  in  the  reign  of 
Jehoiakim ;  second,  in  the  reign  of  his  son,  Jehoia- 
chin;  and  third,  in  the  reign  of  Zedekiah.  By  con- 
fusing these  several  transactions,  infidels  have  made 
difficulties  which  do  not  belong  to  the  book,  and 
then  charged  upon  the  writer  of  it,  either  igno- 
rance, or  a  want  of  veracity. 


1    CHRONICLES. 

1  Chron.  xxi.  25. — So  David  gave  to  Oman 
for  the  place  six  hundred  shekels  of  gold  by 
weight. 

In  2  Sam.  xxi  v.  16,  24  verses,  it  is  said  David 
bought  the  threshing-floor  and  oxen  for  fifty  shekels 
of  silver  of  Araunah.  There  is  no  real  discrepancy 
here.  In  Samuel,  the  purchase  of  the  threshing-floor 
and  oxen  only  is  mentioned,  but  in  the  text  these, 
together  with  the  instruments  of  threshing,  the 
wheat,  and  the  place  where  the  threshing-floor  stood, 
are  included.     See  v.  22,  &c. 

11  (121) 


2    CHRONICLES. 

2  Chron.  xxxiv.  14. — And  when  they  brought 
out  the  money  that  was  brought  into  the  house 
of  the  Lord,  Hilkiah,  the  priest,  found  a  book 
of  the  law  of  the  Lord  given  by  Moses. 

Lifidels  have  made  great  use  of  this  passage,  dis- 
puting thereupon  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch, 
but  only  by  perverting  most  grossly  the  facts  in  rela- 
tion to  it.  There  is  no  evidence  that  more  than  one 
book  of  Moses  was  lost,  or  rather  missed  or  over- 
looked^ as  the  narrative  indicates.  There  is  no  proof 
that  it  was  lost  for  any  considerable  time.  But,  ad- 
mitting that  it  was  the  whole  five  books  of  Moses, 
and  these  were  lost  or  overlooked  in  the  temple  for 
seventy-five  or  eighty  years,  the  greatest  length  of 
time  that  can  be  supposed,  for  they  were  in  use  in 
the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  yet  all  this  would  not  inva- 
lidate the  genuineness  or  the  authenticity  of  the  copy 
found. 

Infidels  have  not  scrupled  to  assert  that  Hilkiah 
forged  the  book  he  professed  to  find,  but  as  this  has 
not  a  shadow  of  evidence  in  sacred  or  profane  his- 
tory to  support  it,  it  is  a  falsehood. 

It  would  appear  from  all  that  is  recorded  of  this 
(122) 


2    CHRONICLES.  123 

incident,  tliat  the  original  autograph  copy  of  the 
Pentateuch  by  Moses,  was  found  by  Hilkiah,  and  it 
was  this  fact,  as  well  as  its  contents,  which  pro- 
duced the  excitement  described. 


PROVERBS. 

Prov.  xxi.  3. — To  do  justice  and  judgment 
is  more  acceptable  to  the  Lord  than  sacrifice. 
(See  p.  130.) 

Prov.  xxvi.  4,  5. — Answer  not  a  fool  accord- 
ing to  his  folly,  lest  thou  also  be  like  unto  him. 
Answer  a  fool  according  to  his  folly,  lest  he  be 
wise  in  his  own  conceit. 

The  Syriac  version,  instead  of  the  above  reading 
of  the  fifth  verse,  reads — Answer  a  fool  according 
to  thine  own  wisdom,  &c.  The  ancient  Hebrew  copy 
of  the  Chaldee  paraphrase,  had  the  same  reading. 
Dr.Kennicott  accounts  for  the  alteration,  as  follows  : 
"  And,  as  the  present  Hebrew  MSS.  afford  proof 
that  a  word  has  sometimes  been  taken  in  carelessly 
from  the  line  above ;  so  the  last  word  of  the  first 
hemistich  in  the  second  verse,  is  here  taken  in,  im- 
properly, from  the  end  of  the  first  hemistich  imme- 
diately over  it,  where  the  same  words,  preceding 
and  following,  might  the  more  easily  mislead  the 
eye  of  the  transcriber." 
(124) 


SONtlS    OF    SOLOMON. 

Much  objection  has  been  made  to  this  book  by 
infidels.  It  is  highly  figurative  in  style,  and  this 
is  one  proof  of  its  oriental  and  ancient  origin.  That 
it  is  unchaste  or  immoral,  only  a  gross  and  impure 
mind  could  assert. 


ECCLESIASTES. 

One  of  the  leading  propositions  of  this  book  is : — 
that  on  the  supposition  of  there  being  no  future 
state,  to  which  this  is  a  preliminary,  the  whole  of 
human  life  is  vanity,  and  the  creation  of  the  world 
and  of  man  a  failure ;  and  in  establishing  and  illus- 
trating this  proposition  the  writer  often  avails  him- 
self of  the  position  of  the  infidel,  and  employs  the 
argiwientum  ex  absurdo,  with  overwhelming  effect. 
So  that  whatever  infidels  here  find  in  sympathy  with 
their  views  is  at  the  same  time  fully  and  fairly  an- 
swered. 

11*  ,  (125) 


ISAIAH. 

Isa.  vii.  14. — Therefore  the  Lord  himself 
shall  give  you  a  sign;  Behold,  a  virgin  shall 
conceive,  and  bear  a  son,  and  shall  call  his 
name  Immanuel. 

The  application  of  this  text  to  Christ  has  been 
disputed,  because  of  its  intimate  connection  with 
another  prophecy,  which  had  its  fulfilment  in  the 
days  of  the  prophet.  These  two  prophecies  can, 
however,  be  distinguished  by  attention  to  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  case.  Eezin,  king  of  Syria,  and 
Pekah,  king  of  Israel,  joined  to  subdue  Judah  and 
place  Tibcah  on  the  throne  of  David,  (vrs.  1,  2,  5,  6.) 
The  prophet  was  commanded  to  take  his  own  child 
(v.  3),  go  to  a  certain  place,  and  there  declare  that 
this  confederacy  should  fail,  and  in  connection  there- 
with he  gave  two  signs — one,  that  Immanuel  should 
be  born  of  a  virgin,  which  was  but  renewing  the 
promise  of  a  Messiah  to  the  Jews, — the  second,  that 
before  this  child,  not  the  virgin's,  but  his  own,  should 
come  to  maturity,  Syria  f^nd  Israel  should  be  for- 
saken of  their  kings,  which  came  to  pass. 

Isa.  XX.  3. — And  the  Lord  said,  Like  as  my 
(126) 


ISAIAH.  127 

servant  Isaiah  hath  walked  naked  and  barefoot 
these  years  for  a  sign  and  wonder  upon  Egypt 
and  upon  Ethiopia. 

"  Men  saw  Isaiah  walking  stark  naked  in  Jeru- 
salem, in  order  to  show  that  the  king  of  Assyria 
would  bring  a  crowd  of  captives  out  of  Egypt  and 
Ethiopia,  who  would  not  have  anything  to  cover 
their  nakedness." — Voltaire. 

This  is  a  falsehood. 

The  prophet  was  told  ^v.  2),  to  throw  off  his  sack- 
cloth and  shoes,  and  this  was  all  that  was  meant  by 
the  word  naked ;  just  as  now,  in  common  parlance, 
we  speak  of  a  person  as  not  dressed  when  the  toilet 
is  not  arranged.  The  4th  v.  speaks  of  the  condition 
of  the  captives,  not  of  Isaiah. 

Isa.  xlv.  7. — I  form  the  light,  and  create 
darkness ;  I  make  peace,  and  create  evil :  I 
the  Lord  do  all  these  things. 

The  Lord  sends  wars,  pestilence,  calamities  and 
other  evils,  as  punishments  for  national  sins ;  it  is  in 
this,  and  not  the  sense  of  an  originator  of  moral 
evil,  that  he  is  said  to  create  evil. 


JEREMIAH. 

Jer.  xxxviii.  27.— Then  came  all  the  princes 
unto  Jeremiah,  and  asked  him :  and  he  told 
them  according  to  all  these  words  that  the 
kins:  had  commanded. 

Jeremiah,  has  been  accused  of  duplicity,  because 
he  refused  to  tell  the  princes  all  that  transpired  be- 
tween him  and  the  king ;  but  he  was  under  no  obli- 
gation to  tell  them  all;  he  had  promised  the  king 
not  to  do  so,  and  what  he  did  tell  them  was  strictly 
true.  Chap,  xxxvii.  20. 


EZEKIEL. 


Eze.  xiv.  9. — And  if  the  prophet  be  deceived 
when  he  hath  spoken  a  thing,  I  the  Lord  have 
deceived  that  prophet,  &c. 

This  is  spoken  of  the  wicked  and  false  prophets, 
and  means  that  God  will  defeat  and  disappoint  their 
predictions.  The  Lord,  in  the  context,  calls  his  peo- 
ple to  repentance,  and  warns  them  against  trusting 
in  these  false  prophets,  who  prophesied  good  of  them 
in  their  sins,  for  they  should  be  "deceived"  if  they 
trusted  to  prosper  in  wickedness.  This  is  all  that 
is  meant  by  deceiving  the  prophet  as  above. 
(128) 


DANIEL. 

Dan.  i.  1. — In  the  third  year  of  the  reign 
of  Jehoiakim,  king  of  Judah,  came  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, king  of  Babylon,  unto  Jerusalem,  and 
besieged  it. 

In  Jer.  xxv.  1,  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim  is 
made  to  correspond  with  the  first  year  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, which  is  supposed  to  be  contradictory  to  the 
text  above. 

1.  As  the  text  was  written  after  Nebuchadnezzar 
came  to  the  throne,  it  was  not  improper  to  speak  of 
him  as  the  king  even  in  events  occurring  while  be 
was  general  only,  just  as  we  would  say  President 
Pierce  was  in  the  Mexican  war. 

2.  Heirs  to  the  kingdoms  are  often  called  kings 
in  ancient  writings,  by  way  of  anticipation.  In  Dan. 
ii.  1,  it  is  said  that  "  in  the  second  year  of  the  reign 
of  Nebuchadnezzar"  he  "  dreamed  dreams,"  yet  this 
must  have  been  three  or  four  years  after  the  event 
named  in  the  text.  Other  illustrations  of  this  are 
to  be  found  in  the  sacred  books. 

3.  If  the  first  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar  com- 
menced toward  the  middle  or  close  of  Jekoiakim's 
third  year,  it  would  correspond  also  with  his  fourth, 

accordino:  to  Jeremiah. 

(129) 


O 


HOSEA. 

Hosea  vi.  6. — For  I  desired  mercy,  and  not 
sacrifice.     Also,  Psa.  xl.  6 ;  Pro  v.  xxi.  3. 

These  texts  have  been  used  by  an  English  infidel 
writer,  to  show  that  God  did  not  command  sacri- 
fices, or  else  has  contradicted  himself.  This  mani- 
fests great  ignorance  or  perverse  obstinacy.  The 
context  of  these  passages  proves  that  it  was  the  cha- 
racter of  the  sacrifices,  and  the  manner  in  which 
they  were  ofiered,  that  called  forth  such  language, 
and  not  the  offering  of  sacrifices  in  itself. 
(130) 


JONAH. 

Jonah  i.  17. — Now  the  Lord  had  prepared  a 
great  fish  to  swallow  up  Jonah.  And  Jonah 
was  in  the  belly  of  the  fish  three  days  and 
three  nights. 

ii.  10. — And  the  Lord  spake  unto  the  fish, 
and  it  vomited  out  Jonah  on  the  dry  land. 

The  book  of  Jonah  has  been  treated  with  a  great 
deal  of  irreverence  and  ridicule,  by  shallow,  self- 
conceited  infidels,  on  account  of  the  incident  nar- 
rated above.  But  the  event  is  miraculous,  and  can 
be  denied  upon  three  grounds  only : — 1.  That  God 
could  not  do  such  a  thing — 2.  That  he  would  not  do 
it,  or — 3.  There  is  not  sufficient  evidence  to  believe  he 
did  do  it.  Upon  the  iirst  ground  the  question  relates 
simply  to  God's  power,  and  will  not  admit  of  dis- 
pute. Upon  the  second  we  remark,  that  the  preser- 
vation and  punishment  of  a  disobedient  prophet — 
the  attestation  of  his  claims  as  a  divine  messeno-er, 
and  the  warning  of  a  wicked  people,  numbering 
nearly  a  million,  certainly  gave  occasion  for  miracu- 
lous interposition.  Upon  the  third  ground  we  ob- 
serve, that  the  evidence  of  the  book  of  Jonah  involves 
the  evidences  of  the  whole  canon;  these  evidences 

(181) 


132    THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

have  never  been  invalidated,  and  are  irrefutable. 
The  name  of  Jonah  has  also  been  discovered  upon 
ruins,  in  the  recent  excavations  at  Nineveh,  by 
Layard. 

Miiller  relates  an  incident  which  took  place  in  the 
Mediterranean,  in  1758.  A  sailor  fell  overboard 
from  a  frigate,  and  was  immediately  received  into 
the  jaws  of  an  immense  sea-dog  or  carcharis  ;  before 
the  fish  sank  he  was  shot,  and  compelled  to  disgorge 
his  prey,  who  was  uninjured,  and  lived  many  years 
afterwards.  Such  a  fish  was,  no  doubt,  employed 
in  the  case  of  Jonah,  and  the  incident  shows  that  the 
miracle  was  not  so  stupendous  as  to  be  utterly  incre- 
dible. The  prophet  was  under  the  care  and  pre- 
served by  the  power  of  God,  unto  whom  all  things 
are  possible.* 

*  See  Biblio.  Sacra,  Jan.  1854. 


Objecflor)^  b^i^eS  ifpor)  i\}6  ^eb  Je,sff)iif)cot. 


MATTHEW. 

Matt.  i.  1. — The  book  of  the  generation  of 
Jesus  Christ,  the  son  of  David,  the  son  of 
Abraham. 

For  reasons  already  stated,  p.  7,  we  naturally 
expect  to  find  differences  in  the  accounts  which  the 
several  Evangelists  give  of  the  life  and  labors  of 
Christ.  In  attempting  to  harmonize  these  accounts 
serious  difficulties  present  themselves.  Many  of 
these  arise  from  the  want  of  chronological  order  in 
the  statement  of  facts.  The  Evangelists  have  not 
regarded  the  succession  of  time  in  the  events  which 
they  have  narrated.  They  begin  with  his  birth  and 
end  with  his  death,  and  subsequent  ascension  to 
heaven,  giving  the  most  important  of  his  sayings 
and  doings,  but  nowhere  is  there  discovered  a  de- 
sign to  preserve  a  fixed  chronological  order  in  the 
facts  related. 

Another  difficulty  in  harmonizing  the  Gospels  is 
12  (133) 


134    THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

found  in  the  different  genealogies  of  Christ,  given 
by  Matthew  and  Luke.  It  can  hardly  be  conceived 
possible  to  construct  such  a  genealogical  table,  de- 
scending from  generation  to  generation  in  unbroken 
succession,  in  a  family  often  dwelling  in  deep  obscu- 
rity, and  whose  history  comprised  a  period  of  seve- 
ral thousands  of  years.  The  most  celebrated  families 
of  modern  times  would  find  it  impossible  to  trace 
their  genealogy  through  a  thousand  years  in  an 
unbroken  line.^*  But  the  expectation  of  the  Mes- 
siah, through  Abraham  and  David,  led  the  Jews  to 
pay  minute  attention  to  their  genealogical  tables, 
and  enabled  them  to  trace  the  ancestorial  line  of 
Christ  through  all  the  divisions  and  subdivisions  of 
the  tribes.  The  differences  in  these  two  tables  of 
!Matthew  and  Luke  are  easily  accounted  for,  and 
happily  may  be  satisfactorily  reconciled. 

The  genealogy  of  Mary,  as  well  as  that  of  Joseph, 
is  given,  fixing,  beyond  dispute,  the  descent  of  Christ 
from  David :  the  descent  by  Mary  has  a  real  signi- 
ficance, that  by  Joseph  an  ostensible  one,  he  appear- 
ing before  the  world  as  the  reputed  father  of  Christ. 

"Botli  tables,  at  first  view,  purport  to  give  the 
lineage  of  our  Lord  through  Joseph.  But  Joseph 
can  not  have  been  the  son  by  natural  descent  of  both 
Jacob  and  Ileli  (Eli),  Matt.  1,  16 :  Luke  3,  23. 
Only  one  of  the  tables,  therefore,  can  give  his  true 
lineage  by  generation.  This  is  done,  apparently,  in 
that  of  Matthew;  because,  beginning  at  Abraham, 

*  Olshanson  on  Matt.  i.  1. 


MATTHEW.  135 

it  proceeds  by  natural  descent,  as  we  know  from 
history,  until  after  the  exile,  and  then  continues  on 
in  the  same  mode  of  expression  until  Joseph.  Here 
the  phrase  is  changed,  and  it  is  no  longer  Joseph  who 
^'  begat"  Jesus,  but  Joseph,  the  "  husband  of  Mary, 
of  whom  was  born  Jesus,  who  is  called  Christ.""^ 
Joseph  was  legally  related  to  Eli  by  marriage.  See 
note  on  Luke  iii.  23. 

Matthew  begins  the  lineage  with  Abraham,  and 
thus  shows  Christ's  relation  to  the  Jews,  but  Luke 
ascends  to  Adam  and  thereby  connects  the  Ee- 
deemer  with  all  mankind. 

After  David,  Matthew  carries  the  line  down 
through  Solomon,  but  Luke  takes  it  through  Na- 
than, another  son  of  David. 

It  happened  sometimes  that  names  were  left  out 
of  the  Jewish  genealogical  tables,  because  of  impiety, 
and  for  other  reasons.  An  illustration  will  be 
seen  by  comparing  Ezra  vii.  1-5,  with  1  Chron.  vi. 
3-15 ;  where  six  generations  are  left  out  of  one 
record.  These  omissions  did  not  impair  the  record, 
as  the  lineage  was  still  made  apparent.  Such  omis- 
sions, for  reasons  not  given,  occur  in  the  table  of 
Matthew. 

The  application  of  the  same  names  to  different 
persons  is  a  source  of  difTiculty  here  as  elsewhere. 
A  little  attention  will  show  that  the  Salathiel  and 
Zorobabel  of  Matthew  are  not  the  same  persons 
bearing  those  names  in  the  table  of  Luke,  yet  the 

*  Dr.  Robinson's  Harmony,  171. 


136     THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

want  of  such  attention  lias  produced  mucli  con- 
fusion. 

The  words,  the  son  of^  running  through  Luke's 
table,  were  added  by  the  translators  for  the  sake  of 
the  connection,  and  are  not  always  literally  true. 

The  three  divisions  (Matt.  i.  17),  are  reckoned  by 
counting  David  as  the  last  of  the  first,  and  the  first 
of  the  second,  and  Jechoniah  as  the  first  of  the  third 
division. 

GENEALOGICAL   TABLE*      ^ 

EXHIBITING   THE    THREE    DIVISIONS    OF    MATTHEW. 


1.  Abraham, 

2.  Isaac, 
8.  Jacob, 
4.  Judah, 
6.  Phares, 

6.  Esrom, 

7.  Aram, 

8.  Aminadab, 

9.  Naason, 

10.  Salmon, 

11.  Boaz, 

12.  Obed, 

13.  Jesse, 

14.  David. 


1.  David, 

2.  Solomon, 

3.  Roboam, 

4.  Abiab, 

5.  Asa, 

6.  Josaphat, 

7.  Joram, 

8.  Uzziah,  (Ozias), 

9.  Jotham, 

10.  Ahaz, 

11.  Hezekiah, 

12.  Manasseh, 

13.  Amon, 

14.  Josiah. 


1.  Jecboniah, 

2.  Salathiel, 

3.  Zorobabel, 

4.  Abiud, 

5.  Eliakim, 

6.  Azor, 

7.  Sadoc, 

8.  Acbim, 

9.  Eliud. 

10.  Eleazer, 

11.  Matthan, 

12.  Jacob, 

13.  Joseph, 

14.  Jesus. 


In  some  ancient  MSS.  the  name  of  Jehoiakim  is 
inserted  between  Josiah  and  Jechoniah,  in  which 
case  the  second  series  begins  with  Solomon  instead 
of  David  as  above,  though  the  repetition  of  David 
does,  at  least,  appear  to  be  called  for  by  the  text, 
Matt.  i.  17.     See  Strong's  Harmony  of  the  Gospels. 


*  From  Dr.  Robinson's  Harmony, 


MATTHEW.  137 

Matt.  ii.  16. — Then  Herod,  when  he  saw 
that  he  was  mocked  of  the  wise  men,  was  ex- 
ceeding wroth,  and  sent  forth,  and  slew  all  the 
children  that  were  in  Bethlehem,  and  in  all 
the  coasts  thereof,  from  two  years  old  and 
under,  according  to  the  time  w^hich  he  dili- 
gently inquired  of  the  wise  men. 

In  the  coasts  thereof^  means  the  surrounding  coun- 
try near  the  town.  This  massacre  has  been  doubted 
because  no  historian  makes  mention  of  it.  This 
silence  is  easily  accounted  for.  The  number  of  chil- 
dren slain  must  have  been  small  (Bethlehem  being 
but  a  little  country  town),  and  the  massacre  itself) 
compared  with  the  many  horrible  deeds  of  Herod^ 
became  a  small  affair. 

Matt.  ii.  23. — And  he  came  and  dwelt  in  a 
city  called  Nazareth  :  that  it  might  be  fulfilled 
which  was  spoken  by  the  prophets,  he  shall  be 
called  a  Nazarene. 

The  word  prophets^  in  the  plural  form,  shows  that 
Matthew  had  no  particular  passage  in  view,  but  used 
the  term  Nazarene  in  the  then  common  sense,  as 
meaning  one  low^  despised.  Psa.  xxii.,  and  Isa.  liii. 
are  suf&cient  to  prove  the  correctness  of  the  text. 

Matt.  iii.  4. — And  the  same  John  had  his 
12* 


138    THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY 

raiment  of  camel's  hair,  and  a  leathern  girdle 
about  his  loins  j  and  his  meat  was  locusts  and 
wild  honey. 

A  species  of  the  grasshopper  or  locust,  very  com- 
mon in  the  east,  is  still  used  there  as  an  article  of 
food,  being  dried,  ground,  and  made  up  into  bread. 

Matt.  iv.  8. — Again,  the  devil  taketh  him 
up  into  an  exceeding  high  mountain,  and 
showeth  him  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world, 
and  the  glory  of  them. 

This  temptation  of  Christ,  by  Satan,  was  in  perfect 
accordance  with  the  prevailing  opinion  of  the  Jews, 
that  the  Messiah  should  have  universal  dominion. 
But  the  text  does  not  mean  (as  infidels  have  charged 
upon  it),  that  all  the  kingdoms  of  earth  could  be 
seen  from  any  mountain  in  Judea  or  elsewhere.  To 
show  means  to  exhibit,  or  make  appear  in  any  way. 

Matt.  X.  34. — Think  not  that  I  am  come  to 
send  peace  on  earth ;  I  am  come  not  to  send 
peace,  but  a  sword. 

Strife  is  not  the  object  of  Christ's  advent ;  its  real 
object  is  the  peace  in  which  the  strife  above  inti- 
mated terminates.  Nevertheless,  strife  is  the  result 
of  Christ's  entrance  into  the  heart ;  it,  too  often, 
brings  upon  a  man  the  enmity  of  ''his  own  house- 


MATTHEW.  139 

hold."  "  The  results  of  Messiah's  appearance  among 
men  depend  upon  their  own  spiritual  dispositions : 
salvation  for  the  believer,  destruction  for  the  unbe- 
liever. Around  his  banner  the  hosts  of  the  faithful 
gather;  but  infidels  reject  and  fight  against  it."* 

Matt.  xi.  3. — And  said  unto  him.  Art  thou 
lie  that  should  come;  or  do  we  look  for  an- 
other ? 

This  is  the  inquiry  John  sent  to  make  of  Christ, 
and  it  is  claimed  to  be  inconsistent  with  his  former 
acknowledgment  of  Christ.  But  John  was  now  in 
prison  and  not  able  to  identify  him  of  whom  he 
hears  so  much,  as  the  "Shiloh."  Moreover,  the 
seeming  delay  in  the  manifestation  of  Christ  as  the 
Messiah  in  great  glory  (as  was  expected),  as  well  as 
a  commendable  caution,  may  have  been  the  reason 
of  his  anxiety  to  hear  from  him  personally. 

Matt.  xiii.  34. — All  these  things  spake  Jesus 
unto  the  multitude  in  parables ;  and  without 
a  parable  spake  he  not  unto  them. 

So  far  from  meaning  that  Jesus  spoke  dark  and 
incomprehensible  things  only,  the  text  teaches  that 
he  presented  and  illustrated  religious  truths  through 
the  medium  of  earthly  things — through  the  familiar 
concerns  of    everyday  life.     "  We  may  define  the 

*  Neander's  Life  of  Christ,  p.  24. 


140    THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

parables  as  representations  througli  whicTi  the  truths 
pertaining  to  the  kingdom  of  God  are  vividly  exhi- 
bited by  means  of  special  relations  of  common  life, 
taken  either  from  nature  or  the  world  of  man- 
kind."^ This  is  all  that  is  meant  by  parables  in  the 
text. 

Matt.  xiii.  58. — And  he  did  not  many 
mighty  works  there,  because  of  their  unbelief. 

Their  unbelief  was  not  the  cause  of  any  inability 
on  the  part  of  Christ,  but  they  had  obstinately 
rejected  his  doctrines,  to  establish  which  his  mira- 
cles were  performed,  consequently,  miracles  were  no 
longer  necessary  or  useful. 

Matt.  XV.  26.- — But  he  answered  and  said, 
It  is  not  meet  to  take  the  children's  bread  and 
cast  it  to  the  dogs. 

Our  Lord  meant  no  disrespect  in  this  language  to 
the  Canaanitish  woman.  He  nsed  a  figurative  ex- 
pression, current  at  the  time,  in  order  to  try  her 
faifth. 

Matt.  XV.  39. — And  he  sent  away  the  mul- 
titude, and  took  ship,  and  came  into  the  coasts 
of  Ma2:dala. 


V-jV 


In  Mark  viii.  10,  it  is  said,  he  "came  into  the 
*  Neander's  Life  of  Christ,  p.  107. 


MATTHEW.  141 

parts  of  Dalmanntlia."  These  places  were  near 
each  other  on  the  west  side  of  the  sea  of  Galilee,  so 
that  he  could  be  "on  the  coasts"  of  one  and  "into 
parts"  of  the  other  at  one  time. 

Matt.  xxi.  1,  2. — And  when  they  were  nigh 
unto  Jerusalem,  and  were  come  to  Bethphage, 
and  unto  the  Mount  of  Olives,  then  sent  Jesus 
two  disciples,  saying  unto  them,  Go  into  the 
village  over  against  you,  and  straightway  ye 
shall  find  dn  ass  tied,  and -a  colt  with  her: 
loose  them,  and  bring  them  unto  me. 

Our  Lord  did  not  here  appropriate  to  his  own 
use  that  to  which  he  had  no  right ;  there  seems  to 
have  been  a  previous  agreement  between  himself 
and  the  owners  of  the  animals  for  the  use  of  them ; 
be  this  as  it  may,  the  owners  gave  their  consent  to 
the  transaction.     Mark  xi.  6. 

Matt.  xxi.  19. — And  when  he  saw  a  fig-tree 
in  the  way,  he  came  to  it,  and  found  nothing 
thereon,  but  leaves  only,  and  said  unto  it,  Let 
no  fruit  grow  on  thee  henceforward  for  ever. 
And  presently  the  fig-tree  withered  away. 

In  blasting  this  fig-tree  there  was  no  trespass 
upon  private  property,  for  it  grew  on  the  public 
road — the  highway.     Neither  is  there  any  conflict 


142     THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

between  this  account  of  the  event  and  that  given 
by  Mark.  Matthew's  is  an  abbreviated,  or  con- 
densed, and  Mark's  a  more  detailed  account,  so  that 
some  points  are  mentioned  in  the  latter  which  are 
omitted  in  the  former ;  but  nothing  in  the  one  con- 
tradicts the  other. 

One  design  of  this  act  of  the  Lord  was  no  doubt 
to  exhibit  the  character  and  destiny  of  the  Jewish 
nation.  Like  this  tree  they  were  fruitless,  and 
consequently  doomed  to  the  wrath  of  God. 

Matt,  xxiii.  35. — That  upon  you  may  come 
all  the  righteous  blood  shed  upon  the  earth, 
from  the  blood  of  righteous  Abel,  unto  the 
blood  of  Zacharias,  son  of  Barachias,  whom 
ye  slew  between  the  temple  and  the  altar. 

In  this  language  our  Lord  announces,  that  the 
long  continued  transgressions  of  the  Jewish  people 
are  about  to  receive  their  merited  retribution.  God 
did  not  send  prophets  to  be  scourged  and  killed, 
that  the  Jews  might  be  punished  for  it.  It  is  the 
consequence  of  their  rejection,  and  not  the  design 
of  their  being  sent,  that  is  here  expressed. 

This  Zacharias  can  not  be  the  one  whose  death  is 
mentioned  in  2  Chron.  xxiv.  20,  21,  as  his  father 
was  Jehoida  (though  it  was  common  in  those  days 
for  persons  to  bear  more  than  one  name),  there  can 
be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  Zechariah,  whose  book 
is  in  the  sacred  canon,  and  who  was  the  son  of  Ba- 


MATTHEW.  143 

rachiah,  is  tbe  person  spoken  of,  thougli  we  have  no 
other  account  of  his  death  than  that  given  in  the 
text. 

Matt,  xxvii.  5. — And  he  cast  down  the 
pieces  of  silver  in  the  temple,  and  departed, 
and  went  and  hanged  himself. 

Matthew  here  states  that  Judas  hung  himself; 
Luke  says,  Acts  i.  18,  he  fell  and  burst  asunder. 
Both  of  the  accounts  are  true ;  it  is  possible  for  a 
man  who  had  hung  himself  to  fall  and  burst.  To 
sustain  a  charge  of  contradiction  between  these,  or 
any  other  passages  of  Scripture,  it  must  be  shown 
that  they  can  not  possibly  be  reconciled,  or,  at  least, 
that  every  proposed  method  of  reconciliation  is 
incorrect  or  fails  to  accomplish  its  purpose. 

Matt,  xxvii.  9. — Then  was  fulfilled  that 
which  was  spoken  by  Jeremy  the  prophet, 
saying,  And  they  took  the  thirty  pieces  of 
silver,  the  price  of  him  that  was  valued,  whom 
they  of  the  children  of  Israel  did  value ; 

10. — And  gave  them  for  the  potter's  field, 
as  the  Lord  appointed  me. 

The  prophecy  here  alluded  to  is  not  found  in  any 
writings  of  Jeremiah,  y/hich  have  come  down  to  us, 
though  some  of  the  fathers  speak  of  books  of  his  in 
wViich  it  does  appear.     As  tlie  Svriac,  ap.d  several 


144    THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

other  early  versions,  are  without  the  name  of  Jere- 
miah, it  is  very  probable  that  it  was  inserted  in  the 
text  by  a  copyist,  and  should  be  omitted. 

In  Acts  i.  18,  it  is  said,  "  this  man  purchased  a  field 
with  the  reward  of  his  iniquity ;"  by  this  is  meant 
that  his  money  pnrchased  it,  though  he  was  not  the 
active  agent  in  the  purchase.  The  idea  is  he  gave 
occasion  to  purclmse :  such  a  construction  is  warranted 
by  usage;  see  Matt,  xxvii.  60  :  "And  laid  it  in  his 
own  new  tomb,  which  he  had  hewn  out  in  the  rock; 
and  he  rolled  a  great  stone  to  the  door  of  the  sepul- 
chre, and  departed ;"  where  it  is  not  meant  that  Joseph 
hewed  the  tomb  out  of  the  rock,  but  had  it  done. 
See  also,  Eom.  xiv.  15:  1  Cor.  vii.  16:  1  Tim.  iv.  16. 

Matt,  xxvii.  28. — And  they  stripped  him, 
and  put  on  him  a  scarlet  robe. 

Mark  and  John  call  this  a  purjjle  rohe,  the  differ- 
ence of  a  shade  or  two  can  make  but  little  matter, 
though  it  is  very  probable  the  word  was  used  to 
specify  the  character  more  than  the  color  of  the  robe. 
It  was  such  a  one  as  was  worn  by  kings,  &o. 

Matt,  xxvii.  44. — The  thieves  also,  which 

were  crucified  with  him,  cast  the  same  in  his 

teeth. 

Luke  speaks  of  but  one  thief  as  railing  at  Christ. 
It  was  common  to  put  the  plural  for  the  singular 
form ;  though  it  is  probable  that  both  thieves  railed 


MATTHEW.  145 

at  him ;  but  one  afterwards  repented.     Luke  xxiii. 
89,  40. 

Matt,  xxviii. — The  Kesurrection  of  Christ. 

Infidels  profess  to  find  such  differences,  discre- 
pancies, and  direct  contradictions  in  the  several 
accounts  of  Christ's  resurrection,  by  the  Evange- 
lists, as  to  destroy  entirely  their  historical  verity. 
If  these  discrepancies  actually  existed  they  would 
form,  indeed,  a  valid  and  insuperable  objection  to 
the  narratives ;  but  if  they  exist  in  appearance  only, 
and  not  in  fact,  then  we  claim  them  as  evidence  of 
the  historical  truth  of  the  Gospels.  They  will  give 
us  "  unity  in  diversity,"  or  "  substantial  truth  under 
circumstantial  variety."  The  existence  of  these  ap- 
parent discrepancies  proves,  beyond  doubt,  that  there 
was  no  collusion — no  previous  agreement  between  the 
historians  as  to  what  should  be  said,  and  it  is  not 
possible  that  they  could  have  separately  and  seve- 
rally imagined  a  story  agreeing  so  perfectly  in  all  its 
parts.  That  differences  should  exist  it  is  natural  to 
suppose  ;  such  must  be  the  case  where  several  repor- 
ters relate  the  same  event,  merely  in  accordance 
with  the  several  phases  of  it  which  they  themselves 
had  observed^  John  tells  particularly  what  came 
under  his  owd  notice,  and  seems  to  have  depended 
for  the  rest  mainly  upon  the  testimony  of  Mary 
Magjdalene.  Luke  narrates  what  he  learned  from 
"  eye-witnesses  and  ministers  of  the  word."  Mark, 
it  appears,  made  up  his  account  from  Matthew  and 
13 


146    THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

Luke,  with  additions  from  those  who  saw  the  oc- 
currences stated.  Matthew  was  one  of  the  witnesses 
and  intimate  with  others.  These  facts  qualify  them 
as  historians  of  the  event,  but  at  the  same  time  lead 
us  to  expect  some  differences  in  their  accounts.  We 
can  well  conceive  how  one  might  relate  what  an- 
other passed  in  silence — how  some  particulars  would 
make  a  deeper  impression  upon  one  mind  than  upon 
others,  and  thus  be  brought  forward  more  promi- 
nently in  one  account  than  in  the  others.  But  that 
with  all  these  differences  the  accounts  should  still 
harmonize  perfectly,  places  beyond  doubt  the  his- 
torical truth  of  the  events  narrated. 

As  Mr.  Paine  has  given,  in  his  "Age  of  Eeason," 
the  sum  of  infidel  objections  to  this  portion  of 
Scripture,  we  shall  depend  upon  his  representation 
of  them. 

He  says  that  Matthew  "states  that  when  Christ 
was  put  in  the  sepulchre,  the  Jews  applied  to  Pilate 
for  a  watch  or  guard  to  be  placed  over  the  sepul- 
chre, to  prevent  the  body  being  stolen  by  the 
disciples ;  but  the  other  books  say  nothing  about 
this  application,  nor  about  the  sealing  of  the  stone, 
nor  the  guard,  nor  the  watch,  and  according  to  these 
accounts  there  were  none." 

But  omissions  are  not  equivalent  to  denials.  No 
one  Evangelist  professes  to  give  all  the  particulars 
of  the  event,  consequently  the  omissions  of  one  may 
be  supplied  by  another  without  invalidating  either. 

"  The  book  of  Matthew  continues  its  account,'' 
snys  Painf^,   "  that  at  the   end  of  tlie  Sabbath,  as  it 


MATTHEW.  147 

began  to  dawn,  towards  the  first  day  of  tlie  week, 
came  Mary  Magdalene,  and  the  other  Mary,  to  see 
the  sepulchre.  Mark  says  it  was  sunrising — John 
says  it  was  dark.  Luke  says  it  was  Mary  Magda- 
lene, and  Joanna,  and  Mary  the  mother  of  James, 
and  other  women,  that  came  to  the  sepulchre.  And 
John  says  it  was  Mary  Magdalene  alone." 

A  formidable  mass  of  discrepancies,  one  must 
confess,  but  let  us  examine  them  more  especially. 
They  all  agree  that  it  was  early  in  the  morning, 
perhaps  they  started  at  twilight  (which  is  all  that 
John  means  when  he  says  it  was  dark),  and  "  came 
unto  the  sepulchre  at  the  rising  of  the  sun,"  accord- 
ing to  Mark. 

2.  Matthew  names  the  two  Marys,  but  does  not 
give  the  least  intimation  they  were  unattended  by 
others. 

3.  John  does  not  say  Mary  Magdalene  went  alone, 
as  Paine  affirms.  He  says  she  went,  but  he  does  not 
say  whether  alone  or  with  others ;  that  is  to  be 
gathered  from  the  other  Evangelists. 

'^  The  book  of  Matthew  goes  on  to  say,"  continues 
Paine,  " '  And  behold,  there  was  an  earthquake,  for 
the  angel  of  the  Lord  descended  from  heaven,  and 
came  and  rolled  back  the  stone  from  the  door,  and 
sat  upon  it ;'  but  the  other  books  say  nothing  about 
any  earthquake,  nor  about  the  angel  rolling  back 
the  stone  and  sitting  upon  it,  and  according  to  their 
accounts  there  was  no  angel  there."  ''Luke  says 
there  were  two,  and  they  were  both  standing;  and 
John  says  there  were  two,  and  both  sitting." 


148    THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

1.  That  Mark,  Luke,  and  John,  say  nothing  of 
the  earthquake,  does  not  invalidate  Matthew's  state- 
ment ;  their  silence  should  be  taken  rather  as  an 
admission  than  a  denial  of  the  fact. 

2.  Matthew  says  an  angel  rolled  away  the  stone 
and  addressed  the  women,  but  does  not  say  there 
was  but  one  present  at  the  time. 

3.  Luke  and  John,  in  describing  the  position  of 
the  angels,  speak  of  two  different  times,  with  an  in- 
terval of  perhaps  several  hours  between  them.  The 
former  relates  the  appearance  of  two  angels  to  all 
the  women,  the  latter  the  appearance  of  two,  some 
time  subsequent,  to  Mary  Magdalene  alone. 

The  appearances  of  Christ,  related  immediately 
after  the  accounts  of  his  resurrection,  are  not  con- 
tradictory statements  of  the  same  event,  as  has  been 
asserted,  but  narratives  of  separate  appearances  at 
different  times  and  places,  as  seen  below.  The 
order  of  sequeuce  of  events  is  as  follows: — Early 
in  the  morning,  Mary  betook  herself  to  the  sepul- 
chre in  company  with  the  other  women.  But  she 
hastened  in  advance  of  her  companions,  and  to  her 
astonishment  found  the  tomb  empty.  Immediately 
she  runs  in  haste  to  Peter  and  John.  In  the 
meanwhile  the  other  women  arrive,  see  the  angels, 
receive  their  commands  and  depart.  Then  the  two 
disciples  come  up — John  first,  outrunning  Peter,  and 
Mary  close  after  them.  They  examine  the  tomb — 
Peter  going  into  it,  and  then  return  home,  leaving 
Mary  there  weeping.  And  now  the  angel  appears 
to  her  and  next  the  Lord  himself,  having  already 


MATTHEW.  149 

appeared  to  tlie  women  on  their  way  as  tliey  re- 
turned. He  is  afterwards  seen  by  Peter,  tlien 
towards  evening  by  the  two  disciples  going  to  Em- 
maus,  by  the  Apostles  (Thomas  being  absent),  as 
they  were  assembled  in  the  evening,  Mark  xvi.  14. 
Eight  days  afterwards  he  appeared  to  the  disciples, 
Thomas  being  present,  Jno.  xx.  24-29;  then  to 
seven  of  the  disciples  at  the  sea  of  Tiberias,  Jno. 
xxi.  1 ;  then  to  the  eleven  on  a  mountain  in  Galilee, 
Matt,  xxviii.  16,  20 ;  afterwards  to  over  five  hun- 
dred, 1  Cor.  XV.  7 ;  again  to  James,  and  finally  to 
the  disciples  just  before  the  ascension. 


MARK. 

Mark  ii.  26.— How  he  went  into  the  house 
of  God  in  the  days  of  Abiathar,  the  high  priest, 
and  did  eat  the  show-bread,  which  is  not  law- 
ful to  eat  but  for  the  priests,  and  gave  also  to 
them  which  were  with  him. 

By  reference  to  1  Sam.  xxi.  1,  it  appears  that  at 
the  time  David  ate  the  show-bread  as  above  stated, 
Ahimelech  was  high  priest,  but  his  son,  Abiathar, 
was  no  doubt  associated  with  him  in  the  priesthood ; 
for  when  Saul  massacred  Ahimelech's  family,  Abia- 
thar escaped  and  followed  David,  and  his  party,  as 
their  priest.  But  the  text  is  correct,  even  if  it  were 
true  that  Abiathar  was  not  then  high  priest,  just  as 
we  may  correctly  say  that  the  Mexican  war  occurred 
during  the  life-time  of  President  Pierce,  though  he 
was  not  then  President. 

Mark  xvi.  17. — And  these  signs  shall  follow 
them  that  believe,  &c. 

This  passage  is  to  be  explained  by  other  parts  of 
Scripture,  by  which  we  learn  that  the  miraculous 
powers  here  promised  to  them  that  believed,  were 
given  to  the  Apostles  and  their  immediate  successors 
for  a  special  purpose,  and,  this  subserved,  they  were 
withdrawn. 
(150) 


LUKE. 

Luke  ii.  2. — And  this  taxing  was  first  made 
when  Cyrenius  was  governor  of  Syria. 

As  Cyrenius,  or  Quirinus,  was  not  governor  of 
Syria  until  ten  years  after  Christ's  birth,  this  text 
seems  involved  in  some  obscurity.  The  whole 
dif&culty  is  in  the  translation  of  the  word  protos^ 
rendered  first  in  the  text.  It  is  sometimes  trans- 
lated, before;  Jno.  1,  30,  xv.  18;  so  translated  in 
the  passage  above,  it  would  read — "  And  this  tax- 
ing, or  census,  was  made  before  Cyrenius  was  gover- 
nor of  Syria."  This  view  is  supported  by  the  fact, 
that  another  census  was  made  after  he  became  go- 
vernor. 

Luke  iii.  19. — But  Herod  the  tetrarch,  be- 
ing reproved  by  him  for  Herodias,  his  brother 
Philip's  wife,  and  for  all  the  evils  which  Herod 
had  done. 

This  brother  is  called  Herod,  in  history,  but  his 
name  was  also  Philip ;  the  three  brothers,  sons  of 
Herod  the  great,  were  named  Herod  Archelaus, 
Ilcrod  Antipas,  and  Herod  Philip ;  Herod  Agrippa 
was  a  grandson  of  Herod  the  great. 

(151) 


152    THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

Luke  iii.  23. — And  Jesus  himself  began  to 
be  about  thirty  years  of  age,  being  (as  was 
supposed)  the  son  of  Joseph,  which  was  the 
son  of  Heli. 

Joseph  was  the  nearest  relative  of  Heli,  Mary's 
father,  therefore  espoused  her,  the  only  daughter,  and 
took  the  inheritance  by  law.  Num.  xxxvi.  6-9. 
For  this  reason  he  is  sometimes  called  the  son  of 
Heli,  according  to  the  custom  of  the  Jews.  See  note 
on  Matt.  i.  1-16. 

Luke  iv.  25. — But  I  tell  you  of  a  truth 
many  widows  were  in  Israel  in  the  days  of 
Elias,  when  the  heaven  was  shut  up  three 
years  and  six  months,  when  great  famine  was 
throughout  all  the  land. 

In  opposition  to  what  is  here  said,  it  has  been 
supposed  from  1  Kings  xviii.  1,  that  the  drought 
a  ad  famine  lasted  but  three  years.  This  is  a  mis- 
take easily  set  right.  We  must  remember  the  sacred 
books  were  originally  written  without  the  divisions 
of  chapters  and  verses.  On  going  back  to  verse  9, 
of  1  Kings,  chap,  xvii.,  we  find  the  prophet  com- 
manded to  dwell  at  Zarephath;  after  this  nothing  is 
said  of  any  communications  from  God,  until  verse  1 
of  the  following  chaj^ter,  where  it  is  said,  "  And  it 
came  to  pass,  after  many  days,  that  the  word  of  the 
Lord  came  to  Elijah  in  the  third  year,"  not  of  the 


LUKE.  153 

drought,  there  is  no  such  intimation,  but  as  the  last 
time  God  spoke  to  him  was  when  he  commanded 
him  to  go  to  Zarepliath,  this  must  be  understood  as 
the  third  year  after  that  event.  The  narrative  in 
1  Kings  xviii.,  does  not  state  the  duration  of  the 
drought. 

Luke  xiv.  26. — If  any  man  come  to  me,  and 
hate  not  his  father,  and  mother,  and  wife,  and 
children,  and  brethren,  and  sisters,  yea,  and 
his  own  hfe  also,  he  cannot  be  my  disciple. 

The  objection  to  this  passage  arises  from  the  igno- 
rance of  the  meaning  and  use  of  the  word  hate; 
which,  in  such  connections  as  the  above,  bears  the 
sense  of  less  love.  "  If  a  man  have  two  wives,  the 
one  loved  and  the  other  hated" — that  is,  loved  less 
than  the  other.  "  When  the  Lord  saw  that  Leah  was 
hated" — that  is,  as  said  in  the  verse  preceding,  "  he 
loved  Eachel  more  than  Leah."  Gen.  xxix.  30,  31. 
See  also  Matt.  x.  37. 

Luke  xvi.  8.— And  the  Lord  commended 
the  unjust  steward. 

Not  the  Lord  Jesus,  but  the  lord  or  master  of  the 
unjust  steward  in  the  parable.  There  are  a  large 
number  of  passages  in  which  the  term  lord  is  applied 
to  man  ;  the  reader  should  be  careful  to  understand 
the  meaning  and  application  of  the  term  in  each 
passage  where  it  is  used. 


JOHN. 

John  i.  18. — No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any 
time. 

The  sense  of  this  passage  and  the  context  is,  that 
such  a  revelation  could  not  come  from  man;  men 
may  hear  God,  but  the  Son  alone  can  see  him. 
There  is  no  recorded  instance  of  man  beholding 
God ;  he  may  have  seen  the  cloudy  the  pillar^  the  Jire^ 
the  visible  symbol  of  divine  presence,  or  the  angel  of 
the  Lord  or  the  Son ;  but  God,  the  Father,  has  no 
man  seen. 

John  i.  35. — And  the  two  disciples  heard 
him  speak^  and  they  followed  Jesus. 

These  two  disciples  were  Peter  and  Andrew ;  the 
conversation  and  interview  between  Christ  and  them, 
here  narrated,  was  a  short  one,  the  calling  of  them 
to  the  discipleship  of  Jesus,  as  stated  by  Matt.  iv. 
18,  was  some  time  subsequent.  Thus  the  seeming 
discrepancy  between  the  passages  disappears  at  the 
touch. 

John  ii.  1-11. — Turning  water  into  wine. 

In   reply  to  the  various   objections  to   this  pas- 
gaoje,  we  remark: — 
(154) 


"0^1 


JOHN.  155 

1.  It  is  said  there  were  six  pots  of  water,  but  it  is 
not  said  that  all  the  water  was  changed  to  wine. 

2.  There  are  no  means  of  determining  how  much 
the  pots  held;  the  word  rendered  firkins  {metretas)^ 
means  measure^  but  how  large  a  measure  is  not  now 
certainly  known. 

3.  The  tenth  verse  does  not  intimate  that  any 
were  intoxicated,  but  rather  the  contrary.  It  states 
simply  what  was  a  custom  of  the  times. 

4.  The  third  day  of  the  first  verse  means  the  third 
day  after  Jesus  came  to  Galilee.    See  chap  i.  43. 

John  iv.  2. —  (Though  Jesus  himself  bap- 
tized not,  but  his  disciples). 

This  verse  explains,  not  contradicts,  the  preceding 
one  where  it  is  said  Jesus  baptized ;  he  did  not  do 
it  himself,  that  is,  personally,  but  in  connection  with 
his  disciples,  he  teaching  and  they  baptizing.  See 
also  verse  22,  chap.  iii. 

John  V.  4. — For  an  anorel  went  down  at  a 
certain  season  into  the  pool,  and  troubled  the 
water  :  wdiosoever  then  first  after  the  troubling 
of  the  water  stepped  in,  was  made  whole  of 
whatsoever  disease  he  had. 

Many  eminent  critics  think  this  incident  an  inter- 
polation and  therefore  reject  it,  but  we  can  not  see 
sufficient  reason  for  such  a  course.  Eusebius  testi- 
fies to  the  existence  of   a  medicinal  spring  in  this 


156    THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

place,  at  his  day.  The  waters  were,  perhaps,  excited 
by  some  internal  and  unknown  cause,  which  led  to 
the  belief  of  angelic  agency ;  or  they  may  have 
been  stirred  by  a  mess&wger  or  servant^  which  is  the 
meaning  of  angel. 

John  xi.  4. — When  Jesus  heard  that,  he 
said,  this  sickness  is  not  unto  death,  but  for 
the  glory  of  God,  that  the  Son  of  God  might 
be  glorified  thereby. 

Yet  Lazarus,  of  whom  this  was  said,  did  die ;  but 
Jesus  knew  this,  and  knew  when  he  died,  long 
before  word  was  sent  him  from  the  family.  These 
words  must  be  understood  as  looking  at  the  final 
result—the  restoration  of  Lazarus  to  life.  This  is 
clearly  indicated  in  the  declaration — "  this  sickness" 
(including  of  course  its  consequences)  "is  for  the 
glory  of  God,"  &c. 

John  xii.  3. — Then  took  Mary  a  pound 
of  ointment  of  spikenard,  very  costly,  and 
anointed  the  feet  of  Jesus. 

There  are  some  differences  in  the  several  accounts 
of  this  transaction,  resulting  from  the  omissions  of 
one  being  supplied  by  another.  But  a  little  atten» 
tion  will  make  all  plain. 

1.  It  will  be  seen  that  neither  of  the  Evangelists 
states  the  date  of  this  occurrence.  John  (xii.  1)  tells 
us  when  Jesus  came  to  Bethany.     Matthew  men- 


JOHN.  157 

tions  (xxvi.  2)  what  be  said  to  the  disciples  two 
days  before  the  feast  of  passover,  but  the  precise 
time  of  the  anointing  is  not  named. 

2.  John  does  not  say  in  whose  house  it  took  place, 
but  this  omission  is  supplied  by  Matthew  and  Mark. 

3.  Matthew  does  not  say  what  kind  of  ointment 
was  used,  but  Mark  and  John  do. 

4.  Matthew  and  Mark  say  it  was  poured  on  the 
head,  but  omit  to  mention  the  feet ;  John  names  the 
feet,  but  omits  the  head.  Both  head  and  feet  were 
anointed  in  accordance  with  the  custom  of  the 
times. 

6.  Matthew  and  Mark  do  not  give  the  name  of 
the  woman,  but  John  supplies  this.-  Thus  do  all  the 
accounts  harmonize. 

John  xix.  14. — And  it  was  the  preparation 
of  the  passover,  and  about  the  sixth  hour :  and 
he  saith  unto  the  Jews,  Behold  your  king ! 

In  this  text  Christ  is  said  to  be  delivered  to  the 
Jews  at  the  sixth  hour,  while  Mark  says  he  was 
crucified  about  the  third  hour.  The  word  sixth,  in 
the  text,  is  thought  by  many  eminent  crities  to  be  a 
mistake  of  some  copyist,  as  a  few  old  MSS.,  read 
third  instead. 

Calvin,  Grotius,  and  some  others,  think  the  two 
Evangelists  adopted  different  modes  of  reckoning 
time,  in  one  of  which  the  day  was  divided  into 
twelve  hours,  beginning  at  sunrise ;  in  the  other  it 
was  divided  into  four  parts  of  three  hours  each, 
14 


158    THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

wliicli  would  make  the  sixth  and  third  coincide. 
Some  think  John  followed  a  Eomish  custom  of  reck- 
oning the  hours  from  midnight. 

The  2'>repaTation  of  the  j^cissover  was  not  a  prepara- 
tion for  the  paschal  lamb,  but  for  Sabbath  services. 
"  Primarily  and  strictly,  this  '  preparation'  or  '  eve' 
would  seem  to  have  commenced  not  earlier  than  the 
ninth  hour  of  the  preceding  day;  as  is  implied, 
perhaps,  in  the  decree  of  Augustus  in  favor  of  the 
Jews,  where  it  is  directed  that  they  shall  not  be 
held  to  give  pledges  on  the  Sabbath,  nor  during  the 
preparation  before  the  same  after  the  ninth  hour; 
see  Jos.  Ant.  16,  7,  2.  But  in  process  of  time  the 
same  Hebrew  word  for  '  eve'  or  '  preparation'  came 
in  popular  usage  to  be  the  distinctive  name  for  the 
whole  day  before  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  i.  e.,  for  the 
sixth  day  of  the  week,  or  Friday."^' 

John  xix.  34. — But  one  of  the  soldiers  with 
a  spear  pierced  his  side,  and  forthwith  came 
thereout  blood  and  water. 

There  is  very  clear  proof  in  this  fact,  that  the 
crassamenium  had  separated  from  the  serum  in  the 
ventricles  of  the  heart,  which  fixes  the  certainty  of 
Christ's  death  beyond  controversy,  and  answers  at 
once  and  forever  all  the  rationalistic  theories  of  the 
resurrection  denying  his  death. 

John  xxi.  24. — And  there  are  also  many 

*  Robinson's  Harmony,  p.  202. 


JOHN.  159 

other  things  which  Jesus  did,  the  which  if  they 
should  be  written  every  one,  I.  suppose  that 
even  the  world  itself  could  not  contain  the 
books  that  should  be  written.     Amen. 

The  truth  of  this  has  been  stoutly  denied,  and  ifc 
has  been  claimed  that  this,  as  a  falsehood,  invali- 
dates John's  testimony  in  all  else. 

Some  suppose  the  passage  to  be  spurious,  and  the 
work  of  some  later  hand.  We  confess  we  see  little 
force  in  the  reason  given  for  that  opinion ;  besides, 
the  text  is  found  in  the  earliest  copies.  The  use  of 
hyperbolical  language  was  very  common  in  the 
east,  and  can  not  be  greatly  objected  to.  But  is 
this  a  hyperbole  ?  John  begins  his  gospel  by  set- 
ting forth  Christ  as  "  the  Word"  eternally  "  with 
God,"  and  which  "  was  God,"  "  made  flesh  and 
dwelt  among"  us,  and  is  it  not  literally  true  that 
the  world  could  not  contain  the  books  which  might 
be  written  of  the  works  of  him  who  made  "  all 
things,"  without  whom  "  was  not  anything  made 
that  was  made,"  wdio  is  "God  over  all,  blessed 
forever." 


ACTS. 

Acts  i.  12. — Then  returned  they  unto  Jeru- 
salem^ from  the  mount  called  Olivet. 

We  should  think,  from  this  passage  and  context, 
that  the  ascension  of  Christ  took  place  near  Mount 
Olivet ;  Luke  says  (xxiv.  50)  it  was  near  Bethany ; 
one  of  the  roads  between  Jerusalem  and  Bethany 
lay  around  and  the  other  over  Mount  Olivet,  which 
solves  the  difficulty. 

Acts  vii.  14. — Then  sent  Joseph,  and  called 
his  father  Jacob  to  him,  and  all  his  kindred, 
three-score  and  fifteen  souls. 

In  Gen.  xlvi.  27,  and  Deut.  x.  22,  the  number  is 
fixed  at  70.  The  text,  no  doubt,  includes  Joseph's 
father,  his  wife,  two  children  and  himself,  making 
in  all  "  three-score  and  fifteen"  of  the  family,  which 
settled  in  Egypt. 

Acts  vii.  15. — So  Jacob  went  down  into 
Egypt,  and  died,  he,  and  our  fathers. 

16. — And  were  carried  over  into  Sychem, 

and  laid  in  the  sepulchre  that  Abraham  bought 

for  a  sum  of  money  of  the  sons  of  Emmor,  the 

father  of  Sychem. 
(160) 


ACTS.  161 

According  to  Gen.  i.  18,  Jacob  was  buried  in 
Abraham's  sepulchre  in  Hebron,  therefore,  the  word 
fathers  must  be  regarded  as  the  sole  subject  of  car- 
ried and  laid  in  the  text ;  they^  and  not  Jacob,  were 
buried  at  Sjchem  or  Shechem.  Ex.  xiii.  19 ;  Jos. 
xxiv.  19. 

But  Jacob,  and  not  Abraham,  bought  the  sepul- 
chre at  Sj^chem,  consequently,  the  text  is  inaccurate. 
The  word  Abraham  may  have  been  accidentally 
used  for  Jacob  by  some  early  copyist,  or  the  word 
lought  may  have  been  used  originally  and  imper- 
sonally, and  Abra.ham  placed  in  the  text  by  a  sub- 
sequent transcriber  to  supply  a  nominative  supposed 
to  be  wanting.  Lightfoot  thinks  two  sepulchres 
were  originally  spoken  of,  and  that  some  small 
words  have  been  lost  from  the  text. 

The  existence  of  such  an  error,  so  easily  ac- 
counted for,  does  not  invalidate  the  authority  of  the 
whole  book,  by  any  means ;  that  the  severe  critical 
examination  to  which  the  Scriptures  have  been  sub- 
jected, has  discovered  and  corrected  a  few  verbal 
mistakes,  is  presumptive  proof  that  all  such  errors 
existing  in  the  text  have  been  detected,  so  tliere  is 
no  occasion  for  doubt  or  disputation. 

Acts.  XXV.  13-18. — The  conversion  of  Paul. 

In  the  several  accounts  given  of  this  event,  in 
this  place,  chap.  ix.  3-8,  and  xxii.  6-11,  there  are 
these  differences, — in  one,  all  the  attendants  stand, 
in  another,  all  fall — in  one,  they  hear  not  the  voice, 
but  see  the  light,  in  another,  they  hear  tJie  voice,  but 
14^ 


162    THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

see   no  person.     These  discrepancies  are  easily  re- 
moved. 

Even  in  the  case  of  an  uninspired  author,  a  con- 
tradiction is  not  charged  if  a  plausible  method  of 
reconciling  two  seemingly  opposite  statements  exist ; 
and,  certainly,  the  sacred  writers  are  entitled  to  the 
same  rule  of  judgment. 

1.  They  heard  the  voice,  ■?*.  e.,  the  tones  or  sound, 
according  to  one  account,  but  did  not  hear  or  dis- 
tinguish, according  to  another,  the  words  which  were 
addressed  to  Paul. 

2.  They  may  have  stood  a  moment  stupified  and 
then  fell  with  increasing  alarm,  or  they  may  have 
been  struck  down  at  first,  and  afterwards  risen  to 
stand  in  speechless  terror.  The  difficulties,  it  will 
be  seen,  are  not  in  the  text,  but  in  the  construction 
which  is  sometimes  put  upon  it. 

There  are  several  facts  in  connection  with  this 
event,  which  may  be  properly  brought  out  just  here. 

1.  Paul  was  a  man  of  extraordinary  attainments. 
The  relics  of  his  genius  which  have  come  down  to 
us,  as  well  as  contemporary  history,  prove  him  a 
man  of  superior  talents.  lie  was  also  ardently 
attached  to  the  religion  of  his  fathers,  zealously  ob- 
servant of  its  rites  and  inveterately  prejudiced  to 
Christianity. 

2.  lie  was  suddenly,  thoroughly,  and  supernatu- 
rally  changed.  It  was  a  sudden  change.  It  was 
reached  by  no  long  or  tedious  process  of  thought  or 
feeling.  He  was  thoroughly  changed  ;  his  intellect- 
ual and  moral  natures  participated  in  that  regenera- 


ACTS.  163 

tion.  The  very  things  he  abhorred,  from  the  depths 
of  his  soul  he  now  loved  and  advocated.  He  became 
the  friend  of  those  whom  he  before  persecuted  even 
to  death.  He  was  changed  by  supernatural  causes. 
This  is  evident  from  the  narrative,  and  to  go  behind 
the  record  and  suppose  something  which  it  neither 
intimates  or  allows  is  meanly  illiberal.  His  own  tes- 
timony is  also  to  the  point.  He  could  not  be  de- 
ceived. He  was  sufficiently  intelligent  to  judge 
whether  it  was  an  electrical,*  or  other  natural  phe- 
nomenon, which  struck  him  down  on  the  road  to 
Damascus.  He  could  not  have  deceived  others.  He 
sacrificed  his  friends,  his  position  in  society,  his 
prospects  in  life,  his  reputation  (the  greatest  of  all 
sacrifices  to  a  noble  mind),  and  subjected  himself  to 
persecutions,  toils,  "perils,"  and  even  death,  in 
attestation  of  his  sincerity.  All  suspicion  of  hypo- 
crisy is,  therefore,  precluded.  Moreover,  it  would 
be  absurdly  unphilosophical  to  say  material  pheno- 
mena are  capable  of  producing  moral  effects.  This 
change  then,  in  Paul,  must  have  been  wrought  by 
supernatural  power. 

3.  That  power  must  have  been  divine.  Evil 
agencies  could  not,  and  would  not,  if  they  could, 
produce  such  a  change.  Evil  causes  produce  only 
evil  effects.  The  sole  conclusion  is,  therefore,  irre- 
sistibly forced  upon  us — "  this  was  the  Lord's  doing, 
and  it  is  marvellous  in  our  eyes." 

*  This  is  Paine's  supposition. 


ROMANS. 
Eom.  V.  8.-— Christ  died  for  us. 

The  doctrine  of  the  atonement  has  met  with  much 
objection  among  infidels.  It  is  alleged  that  "  God 
would  never  make  the  innocent  suffer  for  the  guilty," 
therefore,  this  doctrine  is  incompatible  with  his  jus- 
tice and  goodness,  and  the  book  which  gives  it  as  a 
revelation  from  him  is  monstrously  untrue. 

1.  "  There  are  two  ways  of  meeting  this  objection. 
The  first  is  by  taking  account  of  the  actual  and  po- 
sitive credentials  which  might  be  alleged  on  the  side 
of  this  professed  revelation  as  being  a  message  from 
God ;  its  miracles,  supported  by  the  best  and  amplest 
of  human  testimony ;  its  prophecies,  substantiated 
by  the  history,  both  of  the  anterior  writings  and 
their  posterior  fulfillments ;  its  many  discernible  sig- 
natures of  goodness,  and  sacredness,  and  truth,  as 
palpably  standing  forth  in  the  pages  of  this  record  ; 
its  minute  and  marvellous  consistencies,  both  with 
itself  and  with  contemporaneous  authors,  such  as  no 
impostor  could  ever  have  maintained ;  above  all,  its 
felt  adaptations  to  the  wants,  and  fears,  and  longings 
of  the  human  spirit,  and  the  sense  and  perception 
of  which  are  often  given  in  answer  to  prayer,  so  as 
to  constitute  the  evidence  to  an  inquirer  of  a  most 
(16i) 


EOMANS.  165 

distinct  and  satisfying  revelation  to  himself.""^ 
These  constitute  the  great  bulk  and  body  of  Chris- 
tian evidences,  and  they  are  founded  on  what  we 
observe  and  can  verify  of  the  ways  of  men,  or  on 
what  the  characteristics  of  truth  and  falsehood  are 
in  human  witnesses,  human  histories,  and  human 
experience.  In  the  face  of  these  evidences  the 
truth  of  the  Bible,  and  the  doctrines  it  teaches, 
can  not  be  successfully  controverted. 

2.  We  answer  this  objection  in  another  way.  Let 
it  be  understood  that  the  Bible  does  not  teach  that 
God  made  the  innocent  suffer  for  the  guilty,  but  that 
Christ  voluntarily  took  upon  himself  our  nature  and 
"  suffered,  the  just  for  the  unjust,  that  he  might  bring 
us  to  God." 

"  '  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only 
begotten  son,  that  whosoever  believeth,'  not,  to  be 
sure,  in  a  speculative,  but  in  a  practical  sense,  '  that 
w^hosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not  perish:' 
gave  his  son  in  the  same  way  of  goodness  to  the 
world,  as  he  affords  particular  persons  the  friendly 
assistance  of  their  fellow  creatures ;  when,  without 
it,  their  temporal  ruin  would  be  the  certain  conse- 
quence of  their  follies :  in  the  same  way  of  goodness, 
I  say,  though  in  a  transcendent  and  infinitely  higher 
degree.  And  the  Son  of  God  'loved  us,  and  gave 
himself  for  us,'  with  a  love,  which  he  himself  com- 
pared to  that  of  human  friendship:  though,  in  this 
case,  all  comparisons  fall  infinitely  short  of  the  thing 
intended  to  be  illustrated  by  them."     "And  when, 

■^  Chalmers. 


166     THE  BIBLE  DEFENDED  AGAINST  INFIDELITY. 

in  the  daily  course  of  natural  providence,  it  is  ap- 
pointed that  innocent  people  should  suffer  for  the 
faults  of  the  guilty,  this  is  liable  to  the  very  same 
objection,  as  the  instance  we  are  now  considering." 
It  is  in  this  way  that  Butler  shows  the  analogy  of 
religion  to  the  constitution  and  course  of  nature,  and 
this  sufficiently  answers  all  objections  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  atonement;  for  an  extended  view  of  his 
argument,  we  refer  to  Part  II.,  chap,  v.,  of  his  incom- 
parable and  unanswerable  work. 

Kom.  V.  12. — Wherefore  as  by  one  man  sin 
entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin ;  and 
so  death  passed  upon  all  men,  for  that  all  have 
sinned. 

It  is  asserted  that  carnivorous  beasts  existed  in 
the  pre-adamic  age;  that  fossils  of  that  age  now 
found,  embracing  all  grades  of  animals  from  the 
microscopic  to  the  most  gigantic,  prove  that  death 
then  reigned ;  that  death,  from  the  beginning,  was 
essential  to  the  existing  order  of  things,  that  "the 
mysterious  principle  of  animal  life  is  universally 
maintained  by  death." 

To  all  this  the  text  imposes  not  the  slightest  ob- 
jection. It  is  the  death  of  man  only  that  is  spoken 
of  as  brought  about  by  sin.  "  Had  his  spiritual 
nature  maintained  its  standing  of  love  and  obedience 
to  God — its  natural  state — his  physical  nature  would 
Lave  continued   to    enjoy  ^^re/enza/wraZ    exemption 


ROMANS.  167 

from  the  laws  of  pain  and  deatli  belonging  to  the 
whole  animal  economy.  But  having  brought  him- 
self spiritually  into  an  unnatural  state,  and  so  in- 
curred the  threatened  penalty  of  spiritual  death,  he 
"Was  allowed  to  fall  physically  from  a  state  of  pre- 
ternatural exemption  down  to  the  pre-existing  laws 
of  animal  suffering  and  death.""^ 

*  Harris's  Man  Primeval. 


1   CORINTHIANS. 

1  Cor.  XV.  5. — And  that  he  was  seen  of  Ce- 
phas, then  of  the  twelve. 

It  is  true  there  were  not  twelve  disciples  present 
on  the  occasion  referred  to,  but  the  word  is  used, 
not  in  a  numerical  sense,  but  as  designating  the  body 
or  college  of  apostles.  Some  MSS.  read  eleven  in- 
stead of  twelve. 


2    COEINTHIANS. 

2  Cor.  xii.  16. — But  be  it  so,  I  did  not  bur- 
den you :  nevertheless,  being  crafty,  I  caught 
you  with  guile. 

The  word  ^^hut  he  it  sOj^  and  ^'- neverrtlieless^^^  show 
very  clearly  that  the  Apostle  is  using  the  language 
or  charge  of  an  accuser,  and  he  admits  the  accusa- 
tion for  the  sake  of  argument  simply.  He  does  not 
confess  the  truth  of  the  charge  of  craftiness,  but 
concedes  it  so  far  only  as  to  turn  the  point  against 
his  accuser;  a  very  justifiable  use  of  the  argumen- 
tum  ad  hominem. 
(168) 


2    TIMOTHY. 

2  Tim.  iv.  14. — Alexander,  the  coppersmith, 
did  me  much  evil :  the  Lord  reward  him  ac- 
cording to  his  works. 

This  is  not  to  be  understood  in  the  sense  of  a 
curse,  which  would  be  a  violation  of  divine  law, 
Tlie  best  authorities  demand  the  passage  to  be 
translated  in  a  declarative  sense — "  the  Lord  will 
reward  him,"  &c.  Most  of  the  apparent  impreca- 
tions found  in  the  sacred  writings,  and  given  as  the 
language  of  the  writers,  are  to  be  understood  as 
predictions  of  what  shall  occur  to  the  wicked  ;  occa- 
sionally, however,  they  spoke  in  God's  name  and 
cursed  by  his  authority. 

15  (169) 


HEBREWS. 

Heb.  ix.  3. — And  after  the  second  veil,  the 
tabernacle  which  is  called  the  holiest  of  all. 

4. — Which  had  the  golden  censer,  and  the 
ark  of  the  covenant  overlaid  round  about  with 
gold,  wherein  was  the  golden  pot,  that  iiad 
manna,  and  Aaron's  rod  that  budded,  and  the 
tables  of  the  covenant. 

This  is  said  to  contradict  1  Kings  viii,  9.  "  There 
was  nothing  in  the  ark  save  the  two  tables  of 
stone,  which  Moses  pat  there  at  Horeb." 

But  these  two  passages  refer  to  different  times; 
the  iirst  to  the  lifetime  of  Moses,  the  second  to  the 
time  of  the  dedication  of  the  Temple  by  Solomon. 

Heb.  xi.  31. — By  faith  the  harlot  Rahab 
perished  not  with  them  that  believed  not,  when 
she  had  received  the  spies  with  peace. 

The  word  zonah^  in  Hebrew,  and  pariie^  in  Greek, 
which  is  here  translated  harlot^  should  be  rendered 
innkeeper.     So  also  in  Ja.  ii.  25. 
(170) 


INDEX. 


-•♦*- 


A.  PAGB 

Aaron,  death  and  burial  of, 99 

Abel  on  the  Jews,  blood  of, 142 

Abiathar,  the  High  Priest, 150 

Abram's  duplicity, 69 

Agassiz's  (Prof.)  theory  of  the  races, 59 

Ahab  and  Micaiah, 115 

Analogical  reasoning, 42 

Angels  at  the  sepulchre,  appearance  of, 147 

Animals,  number  of  species, 65 

Anointed,  Christ's  head  and  feet, 156 

Anonymous  books, 24 

Answering  a  fool, 124 

Anthropomorphisms  of  Scripture, 29 

Appearances  of  Christ  after  his  resurrection, 148 

Ark,  capacity  of  Noah's, 66 

Ark  of  the  Covenant,  what  it  contained, 170 

Ark,  death  of  those  who  looked  into  the, 106 

Ascension  of  Christ,  where  from, 160 

Ass's  head,  meaning  of, 118 

Ass  and  colt  taken  by  Christ, 141 

Atmosphere,  the  first, 48 

Atonement  made  by  Christ, 165 

Author  of  the  Pentateuch, 24 

(171) 


172  INDEX. 

B.  PAGE 

Back  parts,  meaning  of, 84 

Balaam,  God's  anger  against, 90 

Baptize,  Jesus  did  not, 155 

Bears,  (See  Children,) 117 

Beginning  of  creation,  date  of  the, 39 

Blindness  of  Jacob, 74 

Books,  anonymous, 24 

Borrowing  jewels  of  the  Egyptians,  the  Israelites, 81 

Breach  of  promise,  meaning  of, 90 

Butler,  quoted, 23, 157 

C. 

Cain's  wife, 61 

Calf,  golden,  made  by  Aaron, 84 

Calves,  golden,  set  up  by  Jeroboam, IIS 

Canaanitish  woman,  Christ's  address  to  the, 140 

Canaanites,  destruction  of  the, 97 

Canaanites,  dwelled  in  the  land, 70 

Canon  of  Scripture, 26 

Captive  women,  treatment  of, 91 

Chaos,  proofs  of  a, 40 

Chariots  of  iron, 104 

Children  torn  by  bears, 117 

Children  of  Bethlehem  slain, 137 

Christ,  a  Nazarene, 137 

Christ,  picture  of, 36 

Christ  came  not  to  send  peace, 138 

Christ,  certainty  of  the  death  of, 158 

Christ,  resurrection  of, 145 

Circumcision  omitted  in  the  wilderness, 102 

Coasts  of  Magdala, 140 

Coasts  of  Bethlehem, 137 

Common  origin  of  all  men, 58-68 

Confusion  of  tongues, 68 

Conscience  does  not  prove  the  existence  of  God, 14 

Contradictions  not  in  the  Bible, 143 


IKDEX.  173 

PAGE 

Conversion  of  Paul, ^ 161 

Crafty,  how  used  by  Paul, 1G8 

Creation,  narrative  of  optical, 43 

Curses  by  God's  servants, 169 

Curse  of  the  fig  tree, 141 

Curse  of  the  serpent, 55 

Cyrenius  was  governor,  taxing  before, 151 

D. 

Dan, • 70 

Day,  the  first, 44 

Death  in  the  pre-adamic  earth, 166 

Death  of  Moses, 101 

Death  of  Christ,  certain, .' 158 

Deluge,  proofs  of  a  universal, 64 

Difficulties  of  Scripture  classified, 9 

Difficulties  of  Scripture,  sources  of  the, 7 

Disciples,  interview  of  Christ  with  the  two, 154 

Documentary  theory, 32 

Dove's  dung,  meaning  of, 118 

Dust  shalt  thou  eat,  meaning  of, 56 

E. 

Earthquake  at  Christ's  resurrection, 148 

Ecclesiastes, 25,  125 

Edom,  kings  of, 73 

EloMm  document, 33 

Epistles,  authors  of  the, 25 

Errors  in  ancient  records, 58 

Esau's  wives,  names  of, 73 

Esther,  author  of  the  book  of, 25 

Eve,  the  mother  of  all  living, 58 

Evidences  of  Christianity, 164 

Evil,  the  Lord  creates,  what, 128 

Evil,  origin  of  moral, 54 

15* 


174  INDEX. 

F.  PAGE 

Fabulous  miracles,  evidence  for, 23 

Faith,  salvation  by, 164 

Famine  in  Israel, 152 

Fathers  visited  upon  the  children,  sins  of  the, 83 

Firkins,  meaning  of, 155 

Fool,  answering  a, 124 

Fragmentary  theories, » 32 

G. 

Genealogies  of  Christ, . .  .*. 133 

Genealogical  table, 136 

Genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch, 34 

Geology,  condition  of,  as  a  science, 41 

Geology  does  not  teach  the  mysteries  of  creation, 42 

Geological  theories, 34,  50 

Giants  in  the  earth, 62 

God,  origin  of  the  idea  of, * .   12 

God,  nature's  teachings  of,  imperfect, 15 

God  resting  from  his  labors, 52 

God,  image  of, 52 

God  tempteth  no  man, 72 

God  the  proprietor  of  life, 106 

God,  no  man  hath  seen, 154 

God's  heart,  a  man  after, 107 

Gold,  talent  of,  meaning  uncertain, 108 

Golden  calf  made  by  Aaron, 84 

Golden  calves  set  up  by  Jeroboam, 118 

Guile,  hov*^  used  by  Paul, 168 

H. 

Harlot,  meaning  of, 170 

Harmony,  want  of  absolute, 28 

Harrows  of  iron,  the  people  put  under, 109 

Hating  father,  &c.,  meaning  of, 153 

Hebron,  names  of, 72 

Hebron,  death  of  the  king  of, 103 


INDEX.  175 


PAGE 


Herod  Philip, 151 

Herod  the  Great,  sons  of, 151 

Hilkiah  finds  a  book  of  Moses, 122 

Historical  truth  of  the  Bible, 6 

Human  sacrifices  forbidden, 87 

I. 

Idolatry  punished  with  death, .' 96 

Image  of  God,  meaning  of, 52 

Immorality  of  the  Bible, 21 

Imprecations  by  God's  servants, 169 

Infidelity,  position  of, 5 

Iniquity  of  the  fathers  visited  upon  the  children, 83 

Interpolations, i 95 

Isaac,  offering  of, 72 

J. 

Jacob,  where  buried, 161 

Jebusites  in  Jerusalem, 103 

Jehovah,  how  used, 75 

Jehovah  document, 33 

Jephtha's  vow, 104 

Jeremiah  accused  of  duplicity, 128 

Jerusalem  taken  by  the  king  of  Babylon, 120 

Jewish  ritual,  design  of, 85 

Joab,  punishment  of, 112 

Job,  author  of  the  book  of, 25 

John's  raiment  and  meat, 138 

John's  inquiries  of  Christ, 139 

Jonah  swallowed  by  a  fish, 131 

Jordan,  this  side,  meaning  of, 94 

Joseph's  kindred  in  Egypt, 161 

Joseph,  the  son  of  Heli, 152 

Jotham,  the  reign  of, 119 

Judas,  the  death  of, 143 

Jude,  author  of  the  book  of, 25 


176  INDEX. 

King  of  Hebron,  death  of  the, 103 

Kings  of  Edom, 73 

Kings,  author  of  the  book  of, 25 

L. 

Lazarus,  death  of, 156 

Letters,  origin  of,  among  the  Hebrews, 100 

Light  created, 47 

Locusts  eaten, 138 

Longevity  of  the  ancients, 62 

Lord,  the  term  applied  to  man, 153 

Lot's  wife, 71 

Lot's  daughters, 71 

M. 

Man,  creation  of, 53 

Man  a  religious  being, 10 

Man  of  God  at  Bethel, 114 

Magdala,  coasts  of, 140 

Magicians,  enchantments  of, 78 

Massacre  of  the  children, 137 

Meekness  of  Moses, 89 

Methuselah's  age, 62 

Micaiah  and  Ahab, 115 

Mighty  works  not  wrought  because  of  unbelief, 140 

Miracles,  definition  of, 78 

Miracles,  Voltaire's  objection  to, 79 

Miracles,  Hume's  objection  to, 79 

Miracles  of  Moses, 78 

Mosaic  account  of  creation  agrees  with  science, 50 

Moses's  father-in-law, 75 

Moses's  death, 101 

Mountain,  the  devil  takes  Christ  to  a, 138 

Mysteries  of  the  Bible, 20 

Mythical  theory  of  Straus,  35 


INDEX.  177 

N.  PAGE 

Naked,  Isaiah  did  not  walk, 127 

Naaman  going  to  the  house  of  Rimmon, 118 

Naming  of  all  creatures, 54 

Narrative  of  creation,  optical, 43 

Nature's  teachings  of  God  imperfect, 15 

Nature  teaches  no  perfect  rule  of  life, 17 

Nazarene,  Christ  called  a, 137 

Nebuchadnezzar,  king  of  Babylon, - 129 

Necessity  of  Revelation, 10 

Number  of  living  species  of  animals, 65 

Numbering  of  Israel, 109 

0. 

Object  of  Christ's  coming, 138 

Omissions, 27 

Olivet,  Christ's  ascension  from, 160 

Origin  of  the  idea  of  God, 12 

P. 

Parable,  meaning  of, 139 

Parental  power  among  the  ancients, 99 

Passover,  preparation  of  the, 158 

Paul's  conversion, 161 

Peace,  Christ  sends  not, 138 

Penalty  of  the  first  sin, 56 

Penalties,  design  of  severe, 87,  96 

Pentateuch,  genuineness  of, 34 

Pharaoh's  heart  hardened, 76 

Piercing  of  Christ's  side, 158 

Picture  of  Christ, 36 

Pillar  of  salt, 71 

Plague,  24,000  slain  by, 91 

Pool  of  Bethesda, 155 

Position  of  infidelity, 5 

Potter's  field,  who  purchased, 143 

Presence  of  the  Lord,  meaning  of, 61 


178  INDEX. 

PAOB 

Proverbs,  author  of, 25 

Psalms,  author  of, 25 

K. 

Races,  Prof.  Agassiz's  theory  of  the, 59 

Readings,  various, 27 

Reasoning,  analogical, 42 

Red  Sea,  passage  of  the, 82 

Rebellious  son,  treatment  of  the, 99 

Repentance  affirmed  of  God, 63 

Resurrection  of  Christ, 145 

Revelation,  necessity  of, 10,  11 

Revelation  a  fact, 10 

Revelation,  author  of  the  book  of, 25 

Robe,  scarlet, 144 

Rule  of  life,  nature  teaches  no  perfect, 17 

S. 

Sabbath,  law  of  the, 46 

Sacrifice,  mercy  and  not, 130 

Salvation  by  faith, 164 

Saul's  death, 108 

Saws,  the  people  put  under, 109 

Scarlet  robe, 144 

Scripture  difficulties,  sources  of, 7  . 

Scripture  difficalties  classified, 9 

Sepulchre  of  Christ,  angels  at  the, 147 

Serpent,  curse  of  the, 55 

Shadow  brought  backward, 119 

Shimei,  David's  directions  concerning, 112 

Signs  of  believing, 150 

Sin,  penalty  of  the  first, 56 

Sojourning  of  Israel  in  Egpyt,  .  /. 82 

Son,  treatment  of  a  rebellious, 99 

Sons  of  God,  meaning  of, 63 

Stalls  of  horses,  Solomon's, 115 


INDEX.  179 

PAGE 

Stars  of  heaven  for  number,  Israel  as  the, 95 

Steward,  unjust,  commended, 153 

Straus,  mythical  theory  of, 35 

Sun,  creation  of  the, 49 

Sun  standing  still, 102 

T. 

Taxing  before  Cyrenius, 151 

Temptation  of  Christ, 138 

Testimony,  character  of, 22 

Thieves  railing  at  Christ, 144 

Third  hour,  Christ  crucified  at  the, 157 

Third  person,  use  of,  by  Moses, 31 

Threshing  floor  bought  by  David, 121 

Time  of  Christ's  resurrection, 147 

Traditions  of  a  deluge, 67 

Tree  of  life, 54 

Twelve,  the  meaning  of, 168 

U. 
Unity  of  the  races, 58,  68 

V. 

A^'arious  readings, 27 

Virgin,  son  of  the, 126 

W. 

Water  turned  to  wine, 154 

Wine  cheereth  God, 104 

Witches  punished  with  death, 83 

Wives  multiplying, 96 

Works  of  Christ,  many, 158 

Writers  of  the  canonical  books, 25 

Writing,  modes  of,  in  the  time  of  Moses, 100 

Z. 

Zacharias,  death  of, 142 


BS530 .B858 

The  Bible  defended  against  the 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00037  6980 


